2025 RJ-JP 17784
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
United India Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Sugna Devi W/o Shri Sanwar Mal and Others - Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 3556, 4261 of 2016
Decided On : 25-03-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Raj Pal Chaudhary
For the Respondent : Bhanu Prakash
ORDER :
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
1- nkokdrkZ@vihykFkhZx.k ¼ftUgsa vkxs ^nkokdrkZx.k* ds uke ls lacksf/kr fd;k tk,xk½ dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy la[;k&4261@2016 ,oa jsLiksaMsaV@vihykaV chek dEiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy la[;k&3556@2016] nksuksa nhokuh fofo/k vihysa /kkjk&173 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e&1988 ds vUrxZr U;k;ky; eksVj nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k] la[;k&1] t;iqj egkuxj] t;iqj ¼ftls vkxs ^vf/kdj.k* ds uke ls lacksf/kr fd;k tk,xk½ }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k&101@2014] Jherh lqxuk nsoh o vU; cuke jkejru lSuh o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 21-04-2016 ¼ftls vkxs ^vk{ksfir fu.kZ;* ds uke ls lacksf/kr fd;k tk,xk½ ds fo#) izLrqr dh xbZ gSA ftudk fuLrkj.k lqfo/kk dh n`f"V ls bl ,d fu.kZ; ds }kjk fd;k tk jgk gSA
2- nkokdrkZx.k }kjk vf/kdj.k ds le{k] iwj.k dqekj dh eksVj okgu nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gks tkus ds QyLo:i 1]75]87]000@& #i;s Dyse izkIr djus gsrq Dyse ;kfpdk izLrqr dh xbZ FkhA vf/kdj.k }kjk mDr Dyse ;kfpdk esa ;kphx.k dks dqy 23]00]000@& #i;s dh {kfriwfrZ jkf'k e; C;kt 06 izfr'kr lkykuk dh nj ls fnyokbZ x;h gSA mDr vk{ksfir fu.kZ; ls O;fFkr gksdj nkokdrkZx.k dh vksj ls vihy la[;k&4261@2016 {kfriwfrZ jkf'k esa cढksrjh fd;s tkus gsrq rFkk jsLiksaMsaV@vihykaV chek daiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy la[;k&3556@2016 vf/kdj.k ds mDr vk{ksfir fu.kZ; dks fujLr djokus gsrq izLrqr dh x;h gSA
3- nkokdrkZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy la[;k&4261@2016 ds laca/k esa nkSjkus cgl fo}ku vf/koDrk nkokdrkZx.k dk rdZ jgk gS fd vf/kdj.k }kjk e`rd dh vk; 10]000@& #i;s ekfld fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSA tcfd oDr ?kVuk e`rd daI;wVj bathfu;fjax dk Nk= Fkk tks izkbZosV Vhpj gksdj V~;w'ku iढkdj 20]000@& #i;s izfrekg vk; vftZr djrk FkkA fo}ku vf/koDrk nkokdrkZx.k dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk gS fd vf/kdj.k }kjk e`rd ds O;fDrxr [kpZ dh dVkSrh ds en esa 1@3 Hkkx dh dVkSrh dh tkdj =qfV dkfjr dh x;h gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk nkokdrkZx.k dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk gS fd vf/kdj.k }kjk dalksfVZ;e dh en esa rFkk vU; enksa esa Hkh vR;f/kd de jkf'k fnyokbZ xbZ gS] ftlesa cढksrjh dh tkosA fo}ku vf/koDrk nkokdrkZx.k dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk gS fd vf/kdj.k }kjk lEink dh gkfu ds en esa Hkh dksbZ jkf'k nkokdrkZx.k dks ugha fnyokbZ x;h gSA vr% nkokdrkZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy la[;k&4261@2016 dks Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dks la'kksf/kr dj {kfriwfrZ jkf'k esa cढksrjh fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;hA vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fo}ku vf/koDrk nkokdrkZx.k }kjk U;k;ky; dk /;ku fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dh vksj vkdf"kZr fd;k x;k %&
● V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi & Anr.,2014 R.A.R.181 (SC)
● The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Kamla Devi & Others, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 237/2022decided on 18.02.2022
4- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk jsLiksaMsVa@vihykaV chek dEiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy la[;k&3556@2016 ds laca/k esa nkSjkus cgl fo}ku vf/koDrk jsLiksaMsaV@vihykaV chek dEiuh dk rdZ jgk gS fd nkokdrkZx.k }kjk e`rd dks oDr ?kVuk 22 o"kZ dh vk;q dk gksuk crkrs gq, daI;wVj bathfu;fjax dk Nk= gksuk crk;k tkdj 20]000@& #i;s izfrekg vk; vftZr djuk crk;k gS] fdUrq nkokdrkZx.k e`rd dh vk; dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgs gSaA bl izdkj e`rd dks dq'ky Jfed dh Js.kh esa j[kk tkdj rRle; izpfyr U;wure etnwjh ds vk/kkj ij mldh vk; fu/kkZfjr dh tkuh pkfg, FkhA fo}ku vf/koDrk jsLiksaMsaV@vihykaV chek dEiuh dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk gS fd vf/kdj.k us e`rd dh ekfld vk; 10]000@& #i;s fu/kkZfjr dh tkdj =qfV dkfjr dh gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykaV chek dEiuh dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk gS fd vf/kdj.k }kjk e`rd dh fu/kkZfjr vk; esa Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh vk; dh cढksrjh dh en esa 50 izfr'kr dh Hkfo";&o`f) dh tkdj =qfV dkfjr dh gS] ftls la'kksf/kr fd;k tkosA fo}ku vf/koDrk jsLiksaMsaV@vihykaV chek dEiuh dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk gS fd ekeys esa e`rd Lo;a Hkh ;ksxnk;h mis{kk dk nks"kh jgk gSA vr% mijksDr vk/kkjksa ij jsLiksaMsaV@vihykaV chek dEiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy la[;k&3556@2016 Lohdkj dh tkdj vf/kdj.k ds vk{ksfir fu.kZ; dks vikLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;hA vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fo}ku vf/koDrk jsLiksaMsaV@vihykaV chek dEiuh }kjk U;k;ky; dk /;ku fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dh vksj vkdf"kZr fd;k x;k %&
● Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs. Bidyadhar Dutta and Others,2006 (1) T.A.C. 969 (S.C.)
5- nksuksa i{kk
AI
Compensation for vehicular accidents must reflect actual loss and income of the deceased, ensuring fairness and justice in the award.
The court established that statutory documents must be prioritized for age determination in compensation claims, ensuring just compensation for claimants.
The court established that compensation for death in a motor accident must be just and reasonable, prioritizing minimum wage rates for income determination.
Compensation for death in motor accidents must be just and reasonable, prioritizing statutory documents for age determination.
Compensation in motor vehicle accidents must prioritize statutory documents for age determination and ensure just and reasonable amounts, with appellate courts limited in their interference.
Claims under the Motor Vehicles Act must be substantiated with adequate evidence and comply with procedural requirements to be valid.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.