Sikandra Chauraha, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa Raj.) v. For

: Mr. Ritesh Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Priya Khushalani HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 12/07/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act of 1988") for enhancement of compensation, assailing the award dated 28.06.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Dausa and Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as the "learned Tribunal") in Claim Case No.469/2006, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant has been partly [2025:RJ-JP:25871] (2 of 5) [CMA-434/2007] allowed and a compensation of Rs.2,91,470/-was awarded to the claimant/appellant.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claim petition was filed by the claimants while stating that on

20.12.2003, the claimant was going to Gudha Katla on motorcycle at about 7:30 P.M., when he reached near Khan Bhankri Circuit House, a tractor bearing registration No.R.J.X.8742 driven by non- claimant/respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle, due to which the claimant/appellant sustained grievous injuries.

3. It was pleaded by the claimant that at the time of the accident, the age of the injured was 29 years and he was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. Subsequently, the claimant had filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.76,00,600/-.

4. Notice of the claim petition was issued to non-claimant/respondents- No.2-A and 2-B, who despite service of the notice, not appeared before the Tribunal, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them vide order dated

17.04.2006.

5. The non-claimant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed a detailed reply to the claim petition and submitted that the owner & driver as well as the Insurance Company of the motorcycle are also necessary parties, therefore, the claim petition be dismissed for want of non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. That on the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues. [2025:RJ-JP:25871] (3 of 5) [CMA-434/2007]

7. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant examined himself as AW-1 and produced documents Ex.1 to Ex.152.

8. In rebuttal, respondents have not led any evidence but the respondent-Insurance Company has produced the Insurance Policy which is Ex.NA3/1.

9. After hearing arguments of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal, decided all the issues in favour of the claimant and awarded a sum of Rs.2,91,470/-.

10. Being aggrieved of which the present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant.

11. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits that the learned Tribunal awarded inadequate amount under the head of pain and suffering and he further submits that the future prospects of the injured has not been considered, therefore, the impugned award may be suitably modified.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company vehemently opposed the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant and submitted that the learned Tribunal after due appreciation of law and facts, has awarded a just and proper compensation, hence, the impugned award does not call for any interference or enhancement by this Court.

13. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

14. From the record of the case, it is revealed that at the time of the accident, the age of the injured/appellant was 30 years and [2025:RJ-JP:25871] (4 of 5) [CMA-434/2007] according to the minimum wages prevalent on the date of accident, his monthly income comes to Rs.2,160/-. A bare perusal of the impugned award reveals that for the grievous injuries suffered by the appellant, the learned Tribunal under the head of 'pain and suffering' awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- which is meager, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant/appellant is entitled for enhancement under the head of pain and suffering while considering the permanent disability of

58.8%.

15. Perusal of impugned award revealed that the learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the injured, therefore, in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the compensation awarded in the impugned order requires to be suitably enhanced.

16. After taking whole consideration of above facts, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under the impugned award is required to be extended to some extent and same is enhanced as per the table made hereinunder:- Loss of income Rs.2160/- x12x17x58%=2,55,571/- Future prospects @40% (+) Rs.1,02,228/- Hospitalisation (28 days) Medical Bills Transportation Food and Nutrition Pain & Suffering Total Rs.14,000/- Rs.15,470/- Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.4,14,269/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.2,91,470/- [2025:RJ-JP:25871] (5 of 5) [CMA-434/2007] Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.1,22,799/-

17. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned MACT Court below is modified and enhanced to Rs.4,14,269/- from the original amount of Rs.2,91,470/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.1,22,799/- before the learned concerned MACT Court within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant is also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount Rs.1,22,799/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the realization of the said amount. On deposition of the enhanced amount, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount to the claimants on pro-rata basis in terms of the award.

18. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced as per the terms indicated above.

19. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. SOURAV /30 (MANEESH SHARMA),J