Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Hapiyo Devi vs Aarab Khan And Ors on 20 July, 2019
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1179/2013
Karna Ram
----Appellant
Versus
Aarab Khan And Ors.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1181/2013
Smt.hapiyo Devi
----Appellant
Versus
Aarab Khan And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1203/2013
Deva Ram
----Appellant
Versus
Aarab Khan And Ors.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. BK Bhatnagar
Mr. Sursh Kumbhat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. TRS Sodha
Mr. DK Bhootra
Mr. UCS Singhvi
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 20/07/2019
1. The appellants have preferred these civil misc. appeals claiming the following relief :-
"CMA No.1179/2013
this appeal may kindly be allowed with costs throughout and impugned judgment and award dated 06.03.2013 may (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 11:10:16 PM) (2 of 3) kindly be modified and may kindly be modified to be suitable extent "
2. The compensation awarded to the appellants/claimants by the learned Tribunal in these three appeals reads as follows :-
Sr. Heads Deva Ram Karna Ram Hapiyo Devi (CMA (CMA (CMA No.1203/13) No.1179/13) No.1181/13)
1. Loss of Income 73,440 53,645 30,955
2. Loss during treatment 9,000 ----- -----
3. Extra Nourishment 1,000 1,000 1,000
4. Transport 1,500 1,500 1,500
5. Treatment Bills 32,140 21,974 32,006
6. Future Prospect ----- ----- -----
7. Pains and sufferings ----- ----- -----
8. Hospitalization ----- ----- -----
9. Compensation for ----- ----- -----
grievous injury 1,17,080 78,119 65,461
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that a proper medical board disability certificate was on record, which indicated 25% disability suffered by all the three appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submit that in the matter of Deva Ram, 12% disability was taken into account, whereas in the matter of Karna Ram and Smt. Hapiyo Devi, zero percent disability was taken into account, even when 25% disability was indicated in the proper certificate issued by the Medical Board.
5. Learned counsels for the respondents though supported the conclusion given by the learned Tribunal but is not in a position to refute that there was a disability certificate issued by proper medical board indicating disability to the extent of 25%. (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 11:10:16 PM)
(3 of 3)
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
7. Since there is a proper medical certificate for disability issued by the Medical Board indicating disability to the extent of 25%, therefore, this Court, while taking into consideration the guidelines issued by Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (Revised Guidelines for Settlement in MACT Cases), deems it appropriate to apply the same as per the 25% disability in each matter.
8. Since both the parties agreed and are on the same page except for 25% disability issue which this Court has decided above, the rest of the matter is to be decided in the spirit of Lok Adalat. So in the spirit of Lok Adalat, the appeals are allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each in all the three cases. The liability shall be shared between both the respondents- Insurance Companies as mentioned in the award. The appellants/claimants shall be entitled for the interest @ 3% from the date of filing of the claim petition.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 118-120-Sudheer/-
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 11:10:16 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)