BENCH AT JAIPUR v. Jaipur through its manager

: Mr. Vinay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Bhati HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 06/05/2025 Order

1. The appellant has filed present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated

11.12.2012 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal") in MAC Case No.648/2009, whereby, the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant has been partly allowed and the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,96,710/- as compensation to the appellant-claimant.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimant was going on a motorcycle bearing No.RJ-01-SJ- [2025:RJ-JP:19148] (2 of 7) [CMA-1187/2013] 6424 from Somalpur to Ajmer. The said motorcycle was driven by the appellant at moderate speed and on the correct side of the road by following the traffic rules and when they reached near Sarhad Bakra Mandi, another vehicle i.e. Ajay Shakti Tempo bearing No.RJ-14-PA-0612 was driven by respondent No.1 in a rash & negligent manner hit the motorcycle on which the claimant was going. Due to aforementioned accident, the claimant sustained injuries. It is stated in the claim petition that the injured was working as a driver by profession and earning Rs.10,000/- as salary and the age of the injured at the time of the accident was 24 years, therefore, he prayed for compensation with regard to injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that due to paralysis, the claimant was unable to move and participate in the case proceedings, therefore, the claim petition was filed by the claimant through his wife/ next friend Smt. Anita.

4. After service of the notice, the respondent No.1-driver appeared through counsel and contested the claim petition on the ground that there was no negligence on his part and even if any liability is found, then it should be for the Insurance Company to settle the said claim.

5. That the respondent No.2-Insurance Company, by filing its reply, denied the averments of the claim petition and submitted that the injuries suffered by the claimant are due to his own negligence and involvement of the vehicle No.RJ-14-PA-0612 has [2025:RJ-JP:19148] (3 of 7) [CMA-1187/2013] not been proved and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. That on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned MACT framed the following issues:- ^^1- D;k vizkFkhZ dze&1 us vius vrqy 'kfDr VSEiks la[;k&vkj-ts- 14&ih-,- 0612 dks fnukad 07-07-09 dks 8 ih,e ij iqfyl Fkkuk ekaxfy;kokl] vtesj ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa ljgn cdjk e.Mh nkSjkbZ vke lMd ij rhoz xfr] mis{kkiwoZd o vlko/kkuh ls pykdj eksVj lkbZfdy ij tkrs izkFkhZ dks VDdj ekjh ftlls mlds lk/kkj.k o xEHkhj pksVsa dkfjr gqbZ \ 2- D;k vizkFkhZ okgu pkyd ds ikl oS/k o izHkkoh ykbZlsal o ijfeV ugha gksus ,oa tokc ;kfpdk dh vfrfjDr dFku esa ntZ dkj.kksa ls Dyse [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS \ 3- izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZx.k ls la;qDr :i ls vkSj i`Fkd&i`Fkd :i ls :i;s 70]15]000@& dh jkf'k izfrdj ds :i esa ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 4- vuqrks"k \**

7. That in order to substantiate the averments of the claim, the claimant examined AW-1 Smt. Anita, AW-2 Suleman and AW-3 Dr. Mahendra Jain.

8. That the non-applicant No.1 remained exparte and the respondent-Insurance Company did not lead any evidence to controvert the evidence adduced by the claimants.

9. That the learned MACT, after hearing arguments of the parties, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.9,96,710/- along with interest.

10. That the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned MACT has awarded inadequate compensation and he submits that though as per the permanent disability [2025:RJ-JP:19148] (4 of 7) [CMA-1187/2013] certificate Ex.302, the permanent disability has been assessed as

74.23% but looking to his physical condition in the light of Ex.-301 (Psychological Assessment Report) and evidence adduced by the appellant's wife-AW.1, father-AW.2 and Dr. Mahendra Jain-AW.3, the permanent disability/functional disability ought to have been assessed @ 100%. The learned counsel further submits that the compensation under the head of loss of income, pain & suffering and future prospect, attendant charges etc., is required to be reconsidered and compensation should have been enhanced.

11. He further submits that as per following judgments, compensation amount deserves to be suitably enhanced: (a) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi [2017 (16) SCC 680], (b) Sakharam Vs. Karan Development Service Pvt Ltd & Ors., [(2323) ACJ 2388] (c) Sarnam Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [(2023) 6 WLC 528] (d) Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation [(2022) 10 WLC 430] and (e) Kalu Puri Vs. Kallu Mohammad and Others [(2024) 3 RLW 2578]

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company supported the impugned award and stated that no interference is required in the impugned order. [2025:RJ-JP:19148] (5 of 7) [CMA-1187/2013]

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

14. A bare perusal of the evidence of AW-1-Smt. Anita and AW-3 Dr. Mahendra Jain, it is evident that the injured is unable to do any work and is totally dependent upon his wife and from the Ex.301 and Ex.302, it is evident that the injured has sustained permanent disability of 74.13%. whereas from Ex.301, it is evident that the mental age of the injured is about 7 years and his IQ is 43.75. Because of this condition, the patient has been categorized as moderate mentally retarded. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the permanent disability of the injured deserves to be accepted and functional disability of the appellant is assessed @ 100% as against 74.23%.

15. 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. Thus, considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant for awarding compensation for the expenses incurred for attendant, diet, pain & suffering, future prospects to the appellant, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation to the claimant/appellant under these heads. However, looking to the facts that the appellant sustained a serious head injury on account of which he is in state of paralysis, and it is not disputed that he required attendant for a long period but under the impugned [2025:RJ-JP:19148] (6 of 7) [CMA-1187/2013] award, only a sum of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded, which is also inadequate. Thus, in my considered opinion the compensation amount is required to be enhanced in terms of the table herein below: Loss of Income Rs.100/-x30x12x17= Rs.6,12,000/- Future prospects (+) 40% Rs.2,44,800/- Medical Bill(+) Rs.4,07,009/- Transportation, Attendant(+) Rs.50,000/- Mental Agony, Physical Pain & future treatment(+) Rs.1,00,000/- Nourishment, Food & Special Diet(+) Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.14,63,809/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.9,96,710/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.4,67,009/-

8. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned MACT is modified by enhancing Rs.14,63,809/- from the original amount of Rs.9,96,710/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.4,67,009/- 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 of Rs.4,67,009/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date 19.11.2009 until the realization of the said amount.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced as per the terms indicated above. [2025:RJ-JP:19148] (7 of 7) [CMA-1187/2013]

10. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. SOURAV /79 (MANEESH SHARMA),J Whether Reportable : Yes/No