Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur v. Jharwal Bhawan, Moti Doongari, Jaipur

Judgment

1. Dr. Praveen Jharwal S/o Shri Pooranmal Jharwal, R/o 335, Jharwal Bhawan, Moti Doongari, Jaipur

2. Prahlad S/o Shri Balu Ram, R/o Khejroli Chomu, District Jaipur

3. Shiv Narain S/o Shri Hanuman Yadav, R/o Bilanandpura, Thana Shahpura, District Jaipur

Mangu Ram S/o Shri Narain Yadav, R/o Bilanandpura, Thana Shahpura District Jaipur Connected With ----Respondents S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3528/2008 Dr. Praveen Jharwal s/o Shri Pooranmal Ji Jharwal, aged 43 years, r/o 335, Jharwal Bhawan, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur ----Appellant/claimant Versus

1. Prahlad s/o Shri Babu Lal Yadav, r/o Khejroli, Chomu, District Jaipur

2. Shivnarayan s/o Hanuman Yadav, r/o Bilandpur, PS Shahpura, District Jaipur

3. Mangu Eam s/o Narayan Yadav, r/o Bilandpur, PS Shahpura, District Jaipur

4. Oriental Insurance Company Limited through Mandliya Parbandhak Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) : Ms. Archana Mantri with Ms. Khushboo Sharma, Mr. K. N. Tiwari (3528/2008) : Mr. K. N. Tiwari (3219/2008), Ms. Madhu Mena on behalf of Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta [2025:RJ-JP:20417] (2 of 6) [CMA-3219/2008] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 09/05/2025 Order

1. These two appeals have been preferred by the appellants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award dated 08.04.2008 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots/Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur) (hereinafter referred to as "the Court below") in Case No.933/1997 (503/2004), whereby the claim petition has been allowed and compensation of Rs.7,96,000/- has been awarded along with interest @ 9% in favour of the claimant.

2. There is no dispute about the fact that the injured Dr. Praveen Jharwal sustained injuries in a road accident dated

05.11.1996. At the time of the accident, the age of the claimant was 29 years, and he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.3,229/- per month. Furthermore, there is no dispute with regard to the involvement of the vehicle or the violation of any provisions of policy, the only dispute in both appeals is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

3. In appeal (3219/2008) preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, it is mainly contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in law by using two different yardsticks in calculating the dependency of loss due to disability. It is specifically argued that the learned Tribunal has incorrectly awarded the medical leave expense, while considering the pay of the injured to be Rs.5,700/-.

4. Further contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Court below has erred in awarding interest at the [2025:RJ-JP:20417] (3 of 6) [CMA-3219/2008] rate of 9% per annum, which is considered to be higher instead interest at the rate of 6% per annum ought to have been awarded.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent supported the impugned order on both the Counts qua awarding of charges for medical leave, considering the monthly income as Rs.5,700/- as well as the rate of interest.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that at the time of the accident, salary of the injured was Rs.3,229/- per month. Therefore, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in calculating the payment for medical leave of 819 days by considering the salary of the injured to be Rs.5,700/-. Similarly, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also erred in awarding a higher rate of interest, i.e. @ 9% per annum, as against the prevailing rate of interest @ 6% per annum. Accordingly, the impugned award qua as it relates to reimbursement of medical leave for 819 days, is ordered to be calculated in accordance with the erstwhile salary of Rs.3,229/- and under the head of reimbursement for medical leave of 819 days, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.88,124/- as against Rs.1,97,750/-.

8. That the learned MACT has awarded interest @ 9% per annum, which in my considered opinion, this rate is on the higher side. Thus, the finding of learned MACT qua awarding of interest @ 9% is modified and reduced to 6% per annum. [2025:RJ-JP:20417] (4 of 6) [CMA-3219/2008]

9. Thus, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is partly allowed to the extent of reducing the compensation of medical leave from Rs.1,97,750 to Rs.87,633 and also reducing the interest rate awarded from 9% to 6% per annum.

10. In appeal (3528/2008) preferred by the appellant/claimant- Dr. Praveen Jharwal, it is contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding inadequate amount of compensation under the head of dependency and other conventional heads.

11. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case that injured had to undergo four surgeries and suffered shortening of the leg by 1'' Inch as well as the long duration of treatment, therefore compensation awarded under the head of pain & suffering and for food and nutrients are also inadequate. He further submits that as per the 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 amount of compensation is required to be revisited.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company supported the impugned order regarding the aforementioned losses.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

14. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the injured remain under treatment from 05.11.1996 to 15.09.1998. During this period, he had to undergo four surgeries, including bone grafting. The appellant also suffered from shortening of the leg by one inch. The learned Tribunal has awarded only [2025:RJ-JP:20417] (5 of 6) [CMA-3219/2008] Rs.50,000/- on account of pain and suffering, which, in my considered opinion, requires enhancement to Rs.1,00,000/-.

15. Similarly, the learned Court below erred in awarding a compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of food, nourishment & special diet. However, looking at the injury and duration of medical treatment, I am of the considered opinion that this amount is also unjust and requires enhancement. Thus, under the head of food, nourishment & special diet, the claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/-, accordingly, the awarded amount under the head of food, nourishment & special diet, is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

16. That if we examine the facts of the case in the light of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court finds that the compensation awarded under the impugned order requires to be modified to some extent and in light of the said judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the compensation amount claimed by the appellant is required to be enhanced in terms of the table herein below: Loss of Income Rs.3,229/- x12x18x53.55%=3,73,491/- Future prospects (+) 40% Rs.1,49,396/- Medical Leave (819x107.6) (+) Rs.88,124/- Pain & Suffering (+) Rs.1,00,000/- Food/Nourishment/ Special Diet (+) Medical Bill(+) Total Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,97,750/- Rs.9,48,761/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.7,96,900/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.1,51,861/- [2025:RJ-JP:20417] (6 of 6) [CMA-3219/2008]

17. Therefore, these present appeals are partly allowed and award passed by the learned MACT is modified by enhancing to Rs.9,48,761/- from the original amount of Rs.7,96,900/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.1,51,861/- 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.1,51,861/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of claim until the realization of the said amount.

18. Accordingly, these appeals are 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. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Amit/48-49 Whether Reportable : Yes/No

Mangu Ram S/o Shri Narain Yadav, R/o Bilanandpura, Thana Shahpura District Jaipur Connected With ----Respondents S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3528/2008 Dr. Praveen Jharwal s/o Shri Pooranmal Ji Jharwal, aged 43 years, r/o 335, Jharwal Bhawan, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur ----Appellant/claimant Versus

1. Prahlad s/o Shri Babu Lal Yadav, r/o Khejroli, Chomu, District Jaipur

2. Shivnarayan s/o Hanuman Yadav, r/o Bilandpur, PS Shahpura, District Jaipur

3. Mangu Eam s/o Narayan Yadav, r/o Bilandpur, PS Shahpura, District Jaipur

4. Oriental Insurance Company Limited through Mandliya Parbandhak Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) : Ms. Archana Mantri with Ms. Khushboo Sharma, Mr. K. N. Tiwari (3528/2008) : Mr. K. N. Tiwari (3219/2008), Ms. Madhu Mena on behalf of Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta [2025:RJ-JP:20417] (2 of 6) [CMA-3219/2008] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 09/05/2025 Order

1. These two appeals have been preferred by the appellants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award dated 08.04.2008 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots/Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur) (hereinafter referred to as "the Court below") in Case No.933/1997 (503/2004), whereby the claim petition has been allowed and compensation of Rs.7,96,000/- has been awarded along with interest @ 9% in favour of the claimant.

2. There is no dispute about the fact that the injured Dr. Praveen Jharwal sustained injuries in a road accident dated

05.11.1996. At the time of the accident, the age of the claimant was 29 years, and he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.3,229/- per month. Furthermore, there is no dispute with regard to the involvement of the vehicle or the violation of any provisions of policy, the only dispute in both appeals is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

3. In appeal (3219/2008) preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, it is mainly contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in law by using two different yardsticks in calculating the dependency of loss due to disability. It is specifically argued that the learned Tribunal has incorrectly awarded the medical leave expense, while considering the pay of the injured to be Rs.5,700/-.

4. Further contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Court below has erred in awarding interest at the [2025:RJ-JP:20417] (3 of 6) [CMA-3219/2008] rate of 9% per annum, which is considered to be higher instead interest at the rate of 6% per annum ought to have been awarded.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent supported the impugned order on both the Counts qua awarding of charges for medical leave, considering the monthly income as Rs.5,700/- as well as the rate of interest.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that at the time of the accident, salary of the injured was Rs.3,229/- per month. Therefore, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in calculating the payment for medical leave of 819 days by considering the salary of the injured to be Rs.5,700/-. Similarly, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also erred in awarding a higher rate of interest, i.e. @ 9% per annum, as against the prevailing rate of interest @ 6% per annum. Accordingly, the impugned award qua as it relates to reimbursement of medical leave for 819 days, is ordered to be calculated in accordance with the erstwhile salary of Rs.3,229/- and under the head of reimbursement for medical leave of 819 days, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.88,124/- as against Rs.1,97,750/-.

8. That the learned MACT has awarded interest @ 9% per annum, which in my considered opinion, this rate is on the higher side. Thus, the finding of learned MACT qua awarding of interest @ 9% is modified and reduced to 6% per annum. [2025:RJ-JP:20417] (4 of 6) [CMA-3219/2008]

9. Thus, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is partly allowed to the extent of reducing the compensation of medical leave from Rs.1,97,750 to Rs.87,633 and also reducing the interest rate awarded from 9% to 6% per annum.

10. In appeal (3528/2008) preferred by the appellant/claimant- Dr. Praveen Jharwal, it is contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding inadequate amount of compensation under the head of dependency and other conventional heads.

11. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case that injured had to undergo four surgeries and suffered shortening of the leg by 1'' Inch as well as the long duration of treatment, therefore compensation awarded under the head of pain & suffering and for food and nutrients are also inadequate. He further submits that as per the 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 amount of compensation is required to be revisited.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company supported the impugned order regarding the aforementioned losses.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

14. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the injured remain under treatment from 05.11.1996 to 15.09.1998. During this period, he had to undergo four surgeries, including bone grafting. The appellant also suffered from shortening of the leg by one inch. The learned Tribunal has awarded only [2025:RJ-JP:20417] (5 of 6) [CMA-3219/2008] Rs.50,000/- on account of pain and suffering, which, in my considered opinion, requires enhancement to Rs.1,00,000/-.

15. Similarly, the learned Court below erred in awarding a compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of food, nourishment & special diet. However, looking at the injury and duration of medical treatment, I am of the considered opinion that this amount is also unjust and requires enhancement. Thus, under the head of food, nourishment & special diet, the claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/-, accordingly, the awarded amount under the head of food, nourishment & special diet, is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

16. That if we examine the facts of the case in the light of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court finds that the compensation awarded under the impugned order requires to be modified to some extent and in light of the said judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the compensation amount claimed by the appellant is required to be enhanced in terms of the table herein below: Loss of Income Rs.3,229/- x12x18x53.55%=3,73,491/- Future prospects (+) 40% Rs.1,49,396/- Medical Leave (819x107.6) (+) Rs.88,124/- Pain & Suffering (+) Rs.1,00,000/- Food/Nourishment/ Special Diet (+) Medical Bill(+) Total Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,97,750/- Rs.9,48,761/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.7,96,900/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.1,51,861/- [2025:RJ-JP:20417] (6 of 6) [CMA-3219/2008]

17. Therefore, these present appeals are partly allowed and award passed by the learned MACT is modified by enhancing to Rs.9,48,761/- from the original amount of Rs.7,96,900/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.1,51,861/- 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.1,51,861/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of claim until the realization of the said amount.

18. Accordingly, these appeals are 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. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Amit/48-49 Whether Reportable : Yes/No