Lakhan son of Shri Kishori Lal Meena, resident of Janira, ----Claimant/ v. Bamanwas District Sawai Madhopur

: Mr. Sandeep Mathur For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rani Bhandari for Mr. A.K. Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 28/07/2025 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 11.04.2007 passed by the by the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track) No.2, Tonk (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) (hereinafter to be referred to as the "learned Tribunal") in M.A.C. No.1183/2004(776/2003), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant has [2025:RJ-JP:28470] (2 of 5) [CMA-2731/2007] been partly allowed and a compensation of Rs.1,27,760/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. was awarded to the claimant/appellant.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that on 17.04.2003, injured-Naurang, along with Ratan Lal, Nehanu Lal, Shri Lal, and Raghuveer, were traveling to Delhi in a truck, bearing registration No.RJ-34-G-0059 to sell vegetables. The Truck was being driven by the driver-non-claimant/respondent No.1-Ram Lakhan in rash and negligent manner with excessive speed. Because of the said rash and negligent driving, the truck bearing registration No.RJ-34-G-0059, capsized and on account of the said accident, Shri Lal, Raghuveer and Naurang sustained serious injuries, and Nehanu Lal and Ratan Lal lost their lives.

3. It was pleaded in the claim petition that at the time of the accident, the injured-Naurang was 23 years of age and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by doing the work of cultivation. In consequence of the said accident, the claimants/appellants had filed a claim petition seeking just and proper compensation.

4. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the non-claimant/respondents No.1(driver) and No.2(owner), and they filed their reply on 20.09.2004, wherein they have denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the driver had to apply the brakes suddenly, causing the Truck to capsize.

5. Notice of the claim petition was served upon the non- claimant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company, and the Insurance Company filed a detailed reply to the claim petition, wherein they have denied the averments of the claim petition and submitted that the driver of the insured Truck was not having a valid and effective license. Further stated that the accident occurred with [2025:RJ-JP:28470] (3 of 5) [CMA-2731/2007] the Truck bearing No.RJ-25-G-0059 and not from the Truck bearing No.RJ-34-G-0059. Therefore, the Insurance Company may not be held liable to pay any compensation to the claimant/appellant.

6. That on the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues.

7. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant examined AW-1 Badam, AW-2 Laduram, AW-3 himself, and AW-4 Shri Lal and AW-5 Raghuveer and produced documents from Ex.1 to Ex.43.

8. In rebuttal, the non-claimant/respondents have examined NAW-1 Chandrashekhar.

9. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the learned Tribunal, after considering that the injured has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 30% (Ex.-35), awarded a sum of Rs.1,27,760/-.

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

11. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits that the learned Tribunal awarded an inadequate amount and has not considered the future prospects of the injured. He further submits that, looking to the nature of injury, the amount awarded under the head of 'pain and suffering' was meagre; therefore, the impugned award may be suitably modified and may kindly be enhanced to some extent.

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 [2025:RJ-JP:28470] (4 of 5) [CMA-2731/2007] 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 by this Court. Therefore, she prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

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

14. From perusal of the record of the case, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has assessed the age of the injured to be 35 years and the income of the injured to be Rs.1,800/- per month. A bare perusal of the impugned award reveals that, while considering the permanent disability to the extent of 30%, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,27,760/- and the learned Tribunal awarded a meager amount under the head of 'pain and suffering'. It is also evident from the impugned order that while granting the compensation, the future prospects have not been considered by the learned Tribunal.

15. Therefore, in the light of 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 compensation awarded in the impugned order needs to be suitably enhanced.

16. Looking to the nature of injuries and after taking into consideration the above facts, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under the impugned award is required to be enhanced to some extent, and the same is improved as per the table made hereinunder:- [2025:RJ-JP:28470] (5 of 5) [CMA-2731/2007] Loss of income Rs.1,800/- x12x16x30%=1,03,680/- Future prospects @40% (+) Rs 41,472/- Hospitalisation and Transportation Loss of Income During Hospitalisation(1,800*2 months) Pain & Suffering Total Rs 9,000/- Rs 3,600/- Rs 25,000/- Rs.1,82,752/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.1,27,760/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs 54,992/-

17. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed, and the award passed by the learned Tribunal below is modified and enhanced to Rs.1,82,752/- from the original amount of Rs.1,27,760/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.54,992/- before the learned concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 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.54,992/- 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 a 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, stand disposed of. SOURAV /76 (MANEESH SHARMA),J