Via Saradhana, Distt. Ajmer vs Shambhu Lal Vaishnav S/o Bhawani Das,R/o Roopaheli,

Judgment

3. Shambhu Lal Vaishnav S/o Bhawani Das,R/o Roopaheli, P.S. Bhilwara, Distt. Bhilwara (Driver Of The Vehicle) Suryaprakash Mansinghka S/o Badrivishal Mansinghka, R/o Near Kamal Ka Kuwa, Sadar Bazar, Bhilwara Through Power Of Attorney Ashish Jindal S/o Mahesh Jindal, R/o H.no. 224, Sadar Bazar, Nasirabad, Distt. Ajmer (Owner Of The Vehicle) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Regional Manager, Regional Office At Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Insurer Of The Vehicle) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Gupta with Mr. Ravi Singh Ms. Shreya Khandal : Mr. Kartar Singh for Mr. Pritam Bijlani

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 05/05/2025

1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 04.10.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Ajmer in claim case No.449/2006(386/2006) titled as Ahsan Vs. Shambhu Lal and Ors., whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant has been partly allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that on 15.11.2005, the appellant was going on the Scooter and near Village Motipura, the respondent No.1 while driving vehicle i.e. Maruti Car bearing No.RJ-06-C-3903 rashly and negligently, hit [2025:RJ-JP:19024] (2 of 7) [CMA-1424/2008] the appellant and as a result thereof, the appellant sustained injuries.

3. At the time of accident, the appellant was 26 years of age and working as a Welder and earning amount of Rs.6,000/- per month.

4. Due to the said injury, body of the appellant was paralyzed, therefore, the claim petition has been filed by the appellant through his wife.

5. That after service of the notices of claim petition, the owner/driver of the vehicle filed their reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that accident occurred due to negligence of the injured himself. They further stated that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3, therefore, it was for the Insurance Company to satisfy the claim of found due.

6. That after service of the notices of claim petition, the respondent-Insurance Company filed its reply wherein it denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that there is violation of the terms of policy, therefore, answering respondent is not liable to pay compensation and also took the defence of contributory negligence and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Court below framed following issues:- ^^1- vk;k fnukad 15-11-2005 dks okgu ek:frdkj la[;k vkj-ts-&06&lh&3903 ds pkyd vizkFkhZ la- ,d 'kEHkwyky }kjk okgu dks rstxfr o vlko/kkuh ls pykdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh xbZ] ftlds dkj.k izkFkhZ vglku ds pksVsa o LFkkbZ viaxrk dkfjr gqbZ \ 2- vk;k vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d okgu dks oDr nq?kZVuk vizkFkhZ la[;k nks ds fu;kstu o fgrkFkZ pyk jgk Fkk \ [2025:RJ-JP:19024] (3 of 7) [CMA-1424/2008] 3- vk;k izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZx.k ls 20]54]000@&:i;s ¼v{kjs chl yk[k pkSiu gtkj :i;s½ dh jkf'k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gS rks fdl&fdl vizkFkhZ ds lkFk fdruh&fdruh jkf'k \ 4- vk;k vizkFkhZ la[;k rhu ds tokc nkok dh pj.k la[;k 23] 26 ls 30 esa of.kZr dkj.kksa ls og mRrjnk;h ugha gS \ 5- vuqrks"kA**

8. In order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim, the claimant examined AW-1-Sheela, AW-2 Om Prakash and AW-3 Dr. J.C. Mayangar and produced documents Ex.1 to Ex.187.

9. Despite granting opportunities, the respondents did not led any evidence.

10. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and a sum of Rs.4,56,340/- along with interest was awarded.

11. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation so awarded is inadequate, therefore, the same may be enhanced. He further submits that due to said accident, as per the certificate issued by the JLN Medical College, the appellant sustained 83.33% of permanent disability but looking to the physical condition of the appellant, the functional disability of the appellant should be assessed as 100%.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Court below while granting compensation has erred in calculating the income @ Rs.2,400/- per month as against the uncontroverted income @ Rs.6,000/-. He further submitted that the learned Court below has not awarded anything under the head of pains and suffering, future prospect, attendant charges, and future treatment etc., therefore, the impugned award deserves to be modified. [2025:RJ-JP:19024] (4 of 7) [CMA-1424/2008]

13. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (a) Sarnam Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2023) 5 Supreme 53 (b) Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi Vs. Abdul Munaf and ors., reported in 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 316; (c) Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, reported in Civil Appeal No.5256 of 2008 decided on 29.1.2014; (d) Kavita Vs. Deepak and Ors. Civil Appeal No.5945 of 2012 decided on 22.08.2012; and (e) Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav Civil Appeal No.6152 of 2021, reported in 2021 Supreme 566.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned award is based on correct appreciation of pleadings and averments of record. Counsel further submits that the learned MACT in the absence of any documentary evidence adopted reasonable method and considered the income of the appellant to be Rs.2400/- as per the prevalent minimum wages for skilled labour. He further submits that the learned MACT awarded a just compensation, therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order.

15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

16. A bare perusal of the record of the case, reveals that from the evidence of AW-1 and AW-3, it is well proved that due to the accident, the appellant sustained serious head injury. At present [2025:RJ-JP:19024] (5 of 7) [CMA-1424/2008] body of the appellant is paralyzed and due to the said injuries he is not able to perform his daily activities and is totally dependent upon the attendants. Looking to the submissions and evidence led by the appellant in the light of judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarnam Singh's case (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the learned MACT Court has committed error in awarding compensation while treating the disability to be 83.30%, whereas as per the statement of AW-3 (Dr. J.C. Mayangar), the functional disability of the claimant, ought to have been considered as 100%.

17. So far as, the next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the MACT has erred in calculating the income of Rs.2400/- whereas it should have been considered @ Rs.6,000/-. So far as the judgments relied upon by the appellant are concerned, all such cases are distinguishable on facts. This Court finds that the learned Court below in the absence of any documentary proof or any corroboratory evidence applied the well settled method and calculated the loss of income while considering the prevalent minimum wages applicable in the case of a skilled labour which appears to be justified.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the learned court below erred in awarding the compensation while incorrectly holding the age of the appellant to be 35 years as mentioned in the discharge ticket whereas on the basis of other documents, age of the appellant ought to have been considered as 26 years. 19. The said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not well founded. No documentary evidence is available on record to conclude that age of the injured is 26 years, therefore, it cannot [2025:RJ-JP:19024] (6 of 7) [CMA-1424/2008] be said that the court below had erred in awarding the compensation by treating the age of the appellant to be 35 years as mentioned in discharge ticket of the appellant (Ex.11).

20. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, loss of earnings should have been enhanced. This Court finds that the compensation awarded under the impugned order requires to be modified to some extent.

21. Thus, while considering the meager compensation awarded for the claimant's head of pain, suffering, and mental agony, and considering the injury sustained by the claimant which had left him paralyzed for life, he will not be able to move through life due to his said injury and consequent bedsores which will be excessively painful, I am of the view that the claimant should be awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering as well as special diet.

22. Similarly, looking to the fact that the appellant is in the state of paralysis, therefore, it is also not disputed that he is also required a regular attendant for last of the life. Thus, in my considered opinion, claimant should be awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards attendant charges and future treatment.

23. In light of the said judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation amount claimed by the appellant is required to be enhanced in terms of the table herein below: [2025:RJ-JP:19024] (7 of 7) [CMA-1424/2008] Annual income (100% Disability) Rs.2400/-x12x16= Rs.4,60,800/- Future prospects (+) 40% Rs.1,84,320/- Pain & Suffering/ Special Diet(+) Attendant Charges/ Future Treatment(+) Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.8,45,120/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.4,56,340/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.3,88,780/-

24. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned MACT is modified by enhancing to Rs.8,45,120/- from the original amount of Rs.4,56,340/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.3,88,780/- before the learned concerned MACT within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant is also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount Rs.3,88,780/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation until the realization of the said amount.

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

26. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV/41 Whether Reportable : Yes/No