HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No v. 1

Mr. Ramavtar Bochalya Mr. Kapil Choudhary Mr. Abhishek Dewanda HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 08/07/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 22.05.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [2025:RJ-JP:25180] (2 of 5) [CMA-2617/2015] (Special Court Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the learned Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.191/2014 (1923/2011), whereby an amount of Rs. 8,13,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, has been awarded in favour of claimant/respondents Nos.1 to 6.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the appeal are that on 06.02.2011, an accident was occurred when Bajrang Lal was returning from Mehroli to Reengus on the motorcycle, bearing registration No. RJ- 14-SR-8075, and while crossing B.R. Polytechnic College, a truck, bearing registration No. RJ-14-2G-8269, was coming from opposite side in rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle and consequently, the deceased- Bajrang Lal sustained injuries and died at the spot.

3. It was submitted by the claimant/respondents that at the time of accident, the deceased- Bajrang Lal was 28 years of age and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, therefore, the claim petition was filed by the claimants praying for awarding of just compensation.

4. Non-claimants/Respondent Nos.7 & 8 despite service, did not appear, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them on 19.03.2012 and non-claimant/respondent No.9 also did not appear despite service, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him on 27.02.2012.

5. In rebuttal, the non-claimant/appellant- Insurance Company filed a reply to the claim petition wherein they have denied the averments made in claim petition and submitted that the owner and Insurance Company of motorcycle had not been impleaded as party, therefore, for want of necessary party, the claim petition be [2025:RJ-JP:25180] (3 of 5) [CMA-2617/2015] dismissed. The insurance company further stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the motorcycle and the FIR has been lodged with a delay of one day, therefore, the claim petition may kindly be dismissed.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, on 19.07.2012 learned Tribunal has framed four issues.

7. In order to substantiate the averments made in the the claim petition, the claimants examined AW-1 Smt. Geeta Devi, AW-2 Shanker Lal and AW-3 Mohan Singh and produced the documents as Ex.1 to 17.

8. The appellant- Insurance Company despite granting opportunity not to led any evidence.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal, by assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- future prospects and after excluding 1/4 as personal expenses and by applying the multiplier of 17, awarded a compensation of Rs.8,13,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

10. Being aggrieved of which, the present appeal has been filed by the non-claimant/appellant- Insurance Company.

11. Learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant- Insurance Company submits that from the site plan Ex.4 and statements of AW-3, it is evident that there is a contradiction about the place of occurrence of the accident, therefore, the award deserves to be set aside. He further submits that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation by considering the future prospects @ [2025:RJ-JP:25180] (4 of 5) [CMA-2617/2015] 50% and income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/-, which is on a higher side.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant/repondent vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant and submitted that from the FIR (Ex.1) and charge-sheet (Ex.2), the involvement of vehicle is well established. He further submits that the learned Tribunal, after due consideration of facts evidence and relevant law, awarded a just compensation of accident, therefore, no interference is called in the present appeal.

13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, and also perused the case law cited by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant.

14. From the record of the case, it is evident that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 28 years and he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, if the compensation amount awarded by learned Tribunal is computed in accordance with the principle laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 28 years; monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/-; (minimum wages) the applicable multiplier would be 17; and after adding the amounts under various conventional heads, the resultant compensation would be much higher than the awarded amount. Although, there is no cross appeal has been filed by the claimant, this Court refrains from enhancing the compensation amount. Hence, the contentions of learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant [2025:RJ-JP:25180] (5 of 5) [CMA-2617/2015] cannot be accepted as it is clear that the awarded amount is not excessive or unreasonable.

15. Even otherwise looking to the minor difference in the quantum, considering the fact of future prospects and income as alleged by the counsel for the appellant, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award.

16. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs.

17. All the pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. DEEPA-76 (MANEESH SHARMA),J