SANJAY KUMAR Vs. ASHOK KUMAR
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-47
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
January 24,2014
SANJAY KUMAR
Appellant
VERSUS
ASHOK KUMAR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI V. UPHAAR TRAGEDY VICTIMS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]SARLA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. AJAY KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA VS. MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND YADAV VS. NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BALRAM PRASAD VS. KUNAL SAHA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SUMAN RAMCHANDRA SONKHAR (MINOR) AND ORS VS. DAUDBHAI SULEMANBHAI VORA & 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2014-9-276] [REFERRED TO]HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECD GALABHAI ALIAS VS. KARA GOGAN RATHOD [LAWS(GJH)-2016-3-90] [REFERRED TO]
RANCHHODBHAI MAADHABHAI KOTADIA VS. ZAHID ISHAKBHAI DALVADI [LAWS(GJH)-2015-6-29] [REFERRED TO]
DEVPALSINH @ LALA DEVENDRASINH CHAUHAN VS. SANDIPKUMAR RAMKISHORBHAI PATHAK (DELETED) [LAWS(GJH)-2018-10-265] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANDIRA BORPATRA GOHAIN AND 5 ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2018-5-171] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. SASANGAN V [LAWS(KER)-2018-7-373] [REFERRED TO]
S UDAYAKUMAR VS. E CHINNAIAH; UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-357] [REFERRED]
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. VS. VIRENDER KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-63] [REFERRED TO]
G. CHANDRAKALA VS. V. PRABHAVATHI [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVA VS. RAJESH [LAWS(KAR)-2018-12-82] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. H LALCHAWIMAWIA [LAWS(GAU)-2020-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. RUBY SARMA [LAWS(GAU)-2018-1-114] [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR YUVARAJ VS. GENERAL MANAGER MSRTC [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-299] [REFERRED TO]
BYREDDY VENKATESWARA REDDY VS. R SURESH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2014-7-197] [REFERRED]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANJU SHUKLA [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-92] [REFERRED TO]
K.F. FAZALUDDIN FAROOQUI VS. SHRI JAYANT MITRA [LAWS(CHH)-2017-3-38] [REFERRED TO]
KISHOR SON OF MADHUKARRAO THAOKAR VS. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR [LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-169] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH JILANI SHAIKH MITHUMIYA VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2019-8-236] [REFERRED TO]
K. LOKESH VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2020-11-86] [REFERRED TO]
SUNILBHAI ANILBHAI GAMIT VS. KALIDAS DHIRUBHAI HALPATI [LAWS(GJH)-2018-12-164] [REFERRED TO]
ABDULLAMIYA JAFARALI SAIYED VS. SUKHVINDRSING HARBANSSING [LAWS(GJH)-2021-6-84] [REFERRED TO]
SALETUL BEWA VS. RANU DAS [LAWS(GAU)-2018-5-231] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER SINGH SABLAIK VS. PRITMI DEVI AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-7-218] [REFERRED TO]
V G ASHWATHAPPA @ ASHWATHA VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(KAR)-2018-12-315] [REFERRED TO]
SHAGUN LAL VERMA AND ORS. VS. ARJUN SINHA AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2020-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
VIPIN KUMAR VS. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-2-164] [REFERRED TO]
INDRAWATI SINGH VS. SARVESH SONI [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-101] [REFERRED TO]
HARI BABU VS. AMRIT LAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. LAVKUSH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-182] [REFERRED TO]
SIDRAM VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-69] [REFERRED TO]
DULAL CHANDRA MAJUMDER VS. BIBEK ROY; ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD [LAWS(TRIP)-2015-4-55] [REFERRED]
BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PANDIAN @ PANDITHURAI [LAWS(MAD)-2018-9-627] [REFERRED TO]
H BASAVANAGOUDA VS. HUSSAINI [LAWS(KAR)-2018-10-388] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT SURESH CHAVAN VS. PANDURANG LAXMAN SALUNKE AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2019-4-313] [REFERRED TO]
NAGNATH SAKHAHARI SHETE VS. KESHAV TRIMBAK AGHAV [LAWS(BOM)-2020-9-314] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH RAFIQ VS. ABHAY AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-11-86] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT SRIVASTAVA VS. U.P.S.R.T.C. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-23] [REFERRED TO]
SATPAL VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
ANISA BEGUM MOTHER OF DECEASED VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-3-122] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. SHAMSHAD ALI [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-294] [REFERRED TO]
HARSHIT KANUBHAI MEHTA VS. DARSHI RESEVOR CONSULTANCY SERVICE LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2021-11-390] [REFERRED TO]
SALETUL BEWA VS. RANU DAS [LAWS(GAU)-2019-5-108] [REFERRED TO]
KAJAL RONAKKUMAR DAVE VS. POPATJI SURAJI THAKOR [LAWS(GJH)-2018-10-251] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANTSINH PRATAPSINH CHAUHAN VS. BARIYA NARANBHAI BAGHARBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2018-10-259] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. VS. RAMNARAYAN CHIMANLAL MADAN AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-3-230] [REFERRED TO]
SURJIT KAUR VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-8-86] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRABHAN VS. NARESH KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-3-153] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SRI SUBHASH CHANDRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-678] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. KATRU SANGEETHA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2024-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
DHONDIBA TUKARAM DONGARE VS. SHAIKH JAKIRBHAI SHERBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2014-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MALINA BASUMATARY [LAWS(GAU)-2019-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. J LALHLUNA S/O GRISTIHA [LAWS(GAU)-2018-5-55] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI SHANKAR AGARWAL VS. SHAIK SHAH VALI [LAWS(KAR)-2014-11-258] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. V.SIAMI W/O RASA CHOZAH [LAWS(GAU)-2020-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. IRAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-164] [REFERRED TO]
C. PANGTHUAMA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2018-11-123] [REFERRED TO]
SH. GREGORY VANLALFINGA VS. SMT. LALBIAKTLUANGI D/O C. MALSAWMI [LAWS(GAU)-2017-6-103] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU RAJ VS. VIRAJ [LAWS(KER)-2014-11-17] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY S. KUMAR VS. ABBAS C.A. [LAWS(KER)-2014-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
FAROOK VS. VASANTHAKUMAR [LAWS(KER)-2014-9-155] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. HALESHAPPA N. [LAWS(KAR)-2022-10-342] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHALIYA DEVI VS. ANGIRA PRASAD DWIVEDI [LAWS(CHH)-2020-5-38] [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR GULAB PAWAR VS. AYOUB JAMAL [LAWS(BOM)-2014-6-126] [REFERRED TO]
BAYANNA VS. B. PURUSHOTAM REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2022-10-50] [REFERRED TO]
GADE SESHIBHUSHANA RAO VS. GAJULA UMA MAHESWARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2023-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMIM AKHTAR VS. DINESH CHAND & ANR (BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD) [LAWS(DLH)-2018-9-376] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. VS. BHAGCHAND JAIN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-2-47] [REFERRED TO]
PYARELAL VS. ABDUL WAHID & ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-9-186] [REFERRED]
J. LALHLUNA VS. S.C. LIANMAWIA & ANR. [LAWS(GAU)-2017-5-140] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL JAYANT NANODKAR VS. MR. DNYANESHWAR VITHOBA RAUT [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-340] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. -
(1.)LEAVE granted.
(2.)THIS appeal has been filed against the final impugned judgment and order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC Appeal No.549 of 2007, urging various legal grounds and contentions for further enhancement of compensation in the case of a motor accident involving the appellant whereby the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal ') by [pic]1,52,336/ - to a total sum of [pic]6,35,808/ -. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of [pic]4,83,472/ - under various heads along with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of payment.
The brief facts of the case are given hereunder: The appellant, Sanjay Kumar received injuries in a roadside accident on 28.09.2005 due to the rash and negligent driving of the Truck No.HR -38D -9546, the offending vehicle. The appellant remained under treatment from 26.10.2005 to 10.12.2005 and due to injuries sustained, his right leg above the knee had to be amputated. As per Entry 18 in Part II of Schedule I of the Workmen 's Compensation Act, 1923, the loss of earning capacity was assessed at 70% due to the permanent disability suffered by the appellant on account of post -traumatic amputation of his right leg above the knee. The appellant was employed as an embroidery worker and claimed compensation of [pic]15 lakhs from the respondents. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The appellant examined two witnesses in support of his claim and documents were taken on record as evidence. PW -1 Sushil Kumar, the record clerk who filed treatment record and MLC as Ex.PW -1/A and Ex.PW -1/B respectively, and, PW -2 Sanjay Kumar, the appellant himself, and he filed his treatment record and bills as Exs.PW -2/1 to PW -2/19, his permanent disability certificate Ex.PW -2/20 and concession certificate Ex.PW -2/21. The respondents did not lead any evidence.
(3.)THE Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries and awarded pecuniary as well as non -pecuniary damages. The compensation was calculated by assigning minimum wages at [pic]3166/ - per month, of which loss of earning capacity was calculated at 70% which comes to [pic]2216/ - per month, i.e. [pic]26,592/ - per annum. Multiplier of 16 was taken. A lump sum compensation of [pic]8000/ - was given to the appellant under the head of 'medical expenses '. Hence, the total pecuniary compensation given was [pic]4,33,472/ -. A sum of [pic]50,000/ - was given as non -pecuniary damages on account of mental pain and agony and loss of future enjoyment of life suffered by him. Thus, a total compensation of [pic]4,83,472/ - was awarded to the appellant with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. Both the respondents were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation but respondent No.2 being the insurer was held to have the primary obligation to pay compensation on behalf of the insured and was directed to deposit the award amount within one month from the date of the order.
(2.)THIS appeal has been filed against the final impugned judgment and order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC Appeal No.549 of 2007, urging various legal grounds and contentions for further enhancement of compensation in the case of a motor accident involving the appellant whereby the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal ') by [pic]1,52,336/ - to a total sum of [pic]6,35,808/ -. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of [pic]4,83,472/ - under various heads along with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of payment.
The brief facts of the case are given hereunder: The appellant, Sanjay Kumar received injuries in a roadside accident on 28.09.2005 due to the rash and negligent driving of the Truck No.HR -38D -9546, the offending vehicle. The appellant remained under treatment from 26.10.2005 to 10.12.2005 and due to injuries sustained, his right leg above the knee had to be amputated. As per Entry 18 in Part II of Schedule I of the Workmen 's Compensation Act, 1923, the loss of earning capacity was assessed at 70% due to the permanent disability suffered by the appellant on account of post -traumatic amputation of his right leg above the knee. The appellant was employed as an embroidery worker and claimed compensation of [pic]15 lakhs from the respondents. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The appellant examined two witnesses in support of his claim and documents were taken on record as evidence. PW -1 Sushil Kumar, the record clerk who filed treatment record and MLC as Ex.PW -1/A and Ex.PW -1/B respectively, and, PW -2 Sanjay Kumar, the appellant himself, and he filed his treatment record and bills as Exs.PW -2/1 to PW -2/19, his permanent disability certificate Ex.PW -2/20 and concession certificate Ex.PW -2/21. The respondents did not lead any evidence.
(3.)THE Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries and awarded pecuniary as well as non -pecuniary damages. The compensation was calculated by assigning minimum wages at [pic]3166/ - per month, of which loss of earning capacity was calculated at 70% which comes to [pic]2216/ - per month, i.e. [pic]26,592/ - per annum. Multiplier of 16 was taken. A lump sum compensation of [pic]8000/ - was given to the appellant under the head of 'medical expenses '. Hence, the total pecuniary compensation given was [pic]4,33,472/ -. A sum of [pic]50,000/ - was given as non -pecuniary damages on account of mental pain and agony and loss of future enjoyment of life suffered by him. Thus, a total compensation of [pic]4,83,472/ - was awarded to the appellant with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. Both the respondents were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation but respondent No.2 being the insurer was held to have the primary obligation to pay compensation on behalf of the insured and was directed to deposit the award amount within one month from the date of the order.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.