Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sharvan vs Suresh Saini & Ors on 11 April, 2012
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2673/2003 Shravan vs. Suresh Sainy & Ors. Date of order : 11/04/2012. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sunil Jain for the appellant. Smt. Rajni Vyas ) Shri Ram Sharan Sharma) for the respondents.
****** Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in exonerating the insurance company of its liability to indemnify for payment of compensation. It is argued that the insurance company did not adduce any evidence to show that the vehicle was insured for private purpose and not for commercial purpose. No evidence has been lead to show that the vehicle was used for hire or reward. It was argued that the Tribunal has awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- for disability of 10% whereas even as per the minimum wages of the year 1998 when the accident took place, the appellant is entitled to approximately Rs.25,000 than what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of income, Rs.6,000 for medicines expenses, Rs.4,000/- for travelling expenses, Rs.10,000 was additional awarded for nutritious diet etc. and Rs.10,000 for pain and suffering and mental agony. Thus a total sum of Rs.50,000 has been awarded as compensation.
Learned counsel for the insurance company has referred to the finding recorded on issue no.4 and has argued that the Tribunal in his finding has extensively discussed the evidence especially the statement of AW-1 Shrawan Kumar and Ex.8 insurance cover note and has also relied on the judgement of this Court in Jaya Ben vs. Gaffar Khan-2001 DNJ (Raj.) page 124 and held that since said witness has admitted that the vehicle was hired and they were passengers in the vehicle, insurance company was rightly exonerated.
On hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to uphold the contention of counsel for the appellant that the insurance company should be held liable to make payment of compensation. However, in totality of facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation by Rs.10,000/-. Thus the award is enhanced from Rs.50,000 to Rs.60,000. The appellant is also entitled to interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim petition. It is made clear that the insurance company would not be liable to pay the compensation.
The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
RS/72 All corrections made in the judgement/order have been incorporated in the judgement/order being emailed.
(Ravi Sharma,P.A.)