Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rameshwar Vs. Salim Khan and ors.

Rameshwar vs Salim Khan and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 12, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/512200

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rameshwar

Respondent

Salim Khan and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
3(2005)ACC286

Excerpt

- .....the vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3, and further that appellant had sustained bodily injury in the accident. dr. p. gupta also found that there was shortening of leg by 2 cms. looking to the nature of employment of the appellant and his age at the time of accident, in our considered opinion the amount awarded is on lower side. he was working as a labourer and was only aged 25 years. due to shortening of leg he would not be in a position to perform his work in the same fashion and in the same manner as he used to do earlier. it is going to cause loss of earning capacity to him. for all these reasons, we are of the opinion, that lump sum amount would take care of the loss of income, his pain and suffering, treatment expenses etc. thus we award a sum of rs. 1,50,000/- to the appellant to be recovered from the respondents jointly and severally. the difference amount would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till it is actually paid.4. the appeal, thus, stands allowed to the extent mentioned hereinabove. respondents to bear the costs througout. counsel's fee rs. 1,000/- if certified.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Appellant herein Rameshwar, aged 25 years, working as labourer had met with a motor accident on 4.8.2000. On account of the said accident he had sustained fracture of right leg. He was treated initially at Kukshi in Civil Hospital, Kukshi and was taken to Barwani for further treatment. On account of the permanent disability sustained by him he filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar, registered as M.V. Case No. 188 of 2000, decided on 23.10.2003, whereby the appellant has been awarded a sum of Rs. 65,000/-. This appeal is for enhancement.

2. Dr. P. Gupta (P.W. 2) has deposed that appellant's permanent disability in right leg is to the extent of 40%. This evidence has gone unrebutted. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Dr. P. Gupta, who had examined the appellant after the accident. Evidence of Rameshwar (P.W. 1) is also in confirmity with the evidence of Doctor. He has also proved the accident and sustaining injuries in the said accident.

3. It has not been disputed before us that on the relevant date the vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3, and further that appellant had sustained bodily injury in the accident. Dr. P. Gupta also found that there was shortening of leg by 2 cms. Looking to the nature of employment of the appellant and his age at the time of accident, in our considered opinion the amount awarded is on lower side. He was working as a labourer and was only aged 25 years. Due to shortening of leg he would not be in a position to perform his work in the same fashion and in the same manner as he used to do earlier. It is going to cause loss of earning capacity to him. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion, that lump sum amount would take care of the loss of income, his pain and suffering, treatment expenses etc. Thus we award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the appellant to be recovered from the respondents jointly and severally. The difference amount would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till it is actually paid.

4. The appeal, thus, stands allowed to the extent mentioned hereinabove. Respondents to bear the costs througout. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000/- if certified.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial