Skip to content


Heera Singh Vs. Dayal Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2(1985)ACC206
AppellantHeera Singh
RespondentDayal Singh and ors.
Cases Referred and Ayub Usufbhai Kharawala v. Prabhudas
Excerpt:
- .....v. malubai menand (1981) acj 36 and ayub usufbhai kharawala v. prabhudas (1981) acj 167 has allowed compensation of rs. 20,000/-. in later case, the amount was increased from rs. 15,000/- to rs.43,000/-for deformity of ankle etc. on account of which the injured would limp while walking. glimping stair-car would be difficult.5. shri gupta, the learned counsel, appearing for the insurance company, tried to distinguish the facts of the above cases,6. i am of the opinion that, out of the amount claimed of rs. 50,000/-in view of the shortening of leg by 1/2 inch, the appellant, even though he is a waiter only in an hotel, should get rs. 10,000/- more and further for physical and mental agony and suffering he should get rs. 6,000/-.7. the result of the above discussion is that the.....
Judgment:

G.M.Lodha, J.

1. This appeal directed against the impugned Award dated 31-8-1977 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- only in favour of the claimants-Heera Singh, for the injuries sustained by the claimant including the fracture of shalt of left tibia and fabula, in an accident which took place on 10th March, 1976 when the claimant was going on cycle from Panch Batti to Ajmeri Gate. It is alleged that, when the claimant reached near Niros Restaurant, the jeep RSM 3908 coming from Ajmeri Gate being rashly and negligently driven at excessive speed by the driver Dayal Singh, struck the claimant, who was moving on his left side.

2. The only point argued by Shri N.K. Joshi, the learned Counsel for claimant-appellant relates to the inadequacy of the compensation for the purpose of partial permanent disability resulting from communicated fracture, which was claimed as damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- but, was allowed by the tribunal, as Rs. 1,300/-. The amount of Rs. 1,300/- allowed also includes the demand for Rs. 6,000/- as damages on account of the physical and mental agony and pain.

3. The facts are not in dispute that on account of the accident, the appellant-claimant who is a waiter in a Hotel at Jaipur, suffered a fracture resulting in permanent shortening of left leg by 1/2 inch. The medical evidence shows that this has resulted in 5% disability of the leg and 2% permanent disability as a whole.

4. Shri Joshi pointed out that in such cases, Gujarat High Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Malubai Menand (1981) ACJ 36 and Ayub Usufbhai Kharawala v. Prabhudas (1981) ACJ 167 has allowed compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. In later case, the amount was increased from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs.43,000/-for deformity of ankle etc. on account of which the injured would limp while walking. Glimping stair-car would be difficult.

5. Shri Gupta, the learned Counsel, appearing for the insurance company, tried to distinguish the facts of the above cases,

6. I am of the opinion that, out of the amount claimed of Rs. 50,000/-in view of the shortening of leg by 1/2 inch, the appellant, even though he is a waiter only in an hotel, should get Rs. 10,000/- more and further for physical and mental agony and suffering he should get Rs. 6,000/-.

7. The result of the above discussion is that the compensation awarded towards damages on account of the disability and mental agony is increased by Rs. 15,000/-and now it would be Rs. 16,300/-instead of Rs. 1,300/- allowed by the tribunal. In other respects the impugned Award is confirmed. The appeal is accepted to the above extent with modification in the impugned Award that on the above amount of Rs. 16,300/- the claimant-appellant would get interest at the rate of 12% instead of 6% from the date of application till the date of realisation. The costs awarded as Rs. 300/- by the tribunal is confirmed.

8. In this appeal, there would be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //