Attorney v. Jagdish S/o

Judgment

1. Jagdish S/o Shri Bhura Ram, R/o Khonagoian Police Station Malviya Nagar Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur (Raj)

2. Prithvi Ram S/o Shri Raghunath Prasad, R/o Mohalla Nayawas Alwar (Raj) (Driver Of Truck No. Rj-14-G-0537)

3. Virendra Kumar Jain S/o Shri Sugan Chand Jain, R/o 3-T- 8, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj) (As Per Registration Owner Of Truck No. Rj-14-G-0537)

Mahadev S/o Shri Sedu Ram, R/o Teela No. 5, Kachchi Basti Jawahar Nagar Jaipur (Raj) (Owner Of Truck No. Rj- 14-G-0537 As Per Insurance Policy) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2052/2019 Jagdish S/o Shri Bhuraram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Kho Nagoriyan Police Thana, Malviya Nagar, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur Versus ----Appellant

1. Prithviram S/o Shri Raghunath Prasad, R/o Mohalla Nayabas, Alwar, Rajasthan (Driver Truck No. Rj-14-G- 0537)

2. Virendra Kumar Jain S/o Shri Suganchand Jain, R/o 3-T-8, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (According To Registration Owner Truck No. Rj-14-G-0537)

3. Mahadev S/o Shri Seduram, R/o Teela No. 5, Kacchi Basti Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (According To Insurance Policy Owner Truck No. Rj-14-G-0537)

4. United India Insurance Company Limited Through Regional Manager, M.i. Road, Jaipur Presently Office [2025:RJ-JP:19401] (2 of 6) [CMA-878/2019] Sahara Chambers Tonk Road, Jaipur (Insured Vehicle Truck No. Rj-14-G-0537) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raaj Pal Chaudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khadengra Nath Tiwari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 08/05/2025 Order

1. In view of the order dated 21.04.2025, these appeals are heard and disposed of finally.

2. Appeal No. 878/2019 is filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. with a challenge to award dated

21.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') on claim petition No. 957/2004 (764/02) being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

3. Appeal No. 2052/2019 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal stating that on 26.03.2002 when the claimant was on his motorcycle, the offending vehicle i.e. a truck hit the motorcycle, resulting into various grievous injuries. It was further stated that the claimant is a boy aged 19 years, working as a painter and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. It was further stated [2025:RJ-JP:19401] (3 of 6) [CMA-878/2019] that in the alleged accident, the claimant has suffered 60% disability because of amputation of his left leg.

5. After filing of the reply to the claim petition and additional evidence, the Tribunal passed an award dated

09.11.2004, allowing compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,64,600/-

6. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal vide its award dated 09.11.2004, the claimant preferred S.B. Misc. Appeal No. 625/2005 before the High Court which was partly allowed vide judgment dated

13.04.2017 (correction order dated 07.09.2018) remanding back the matter to the Tribunal to decide issue No. 4 afresh, after taking into consideration the objections raised by the claimant in the appeal.

7. The Tribunal, vide its judgment dated 21.12.2018 decided issued No. 4 and modified the earlier award as regards the quantum of compensation and allowed a total of Rs.25,15,600/- as compensation to the claimant.

8. Being aggrieved by the fresh judgment dated

21.12.2018, both these appeals have been preferred, one by the insurance company and another by the claimant as regards the quantum of compensation.

9. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the claimant in the claim petition has specifically averred that at the time of the alleged accident the claimant was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, whereas the Tribunal, while passing the impugned award has determined the income of the claimant as Rs.7,000/- per month and 30% as its future prospects. He [2025:RJ-JP:19401] (4 of 6) [CMA-878/2019] submits that determination of the income by the Tribunal in excess of the averment made in the claim petition is illegal and arbitrary.

9. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant has been awarded very meager amount under the head of mental agony and so also under the head of enjoyment of marital life and such others, which should be enhanced. He further submits that determination of income by the Tribunal does not suffer any illegality.

10. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the record.

11. The fact of accident by the offending vehicle which is insured by the insurance company is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that in the said accident the claimant has suffered 60% disability because of the amputation of his left leg.

12. In the claim petition, the claimant has specifically averred that he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of accident working as a painter and again in the affidavit submitted by the claimant AW-1, it has been averred that at the time of accident the claimant was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. In the cross-examination by the counsel for the insurance company, nothing has come out to dispute the fact stated by the claimant as regards his income of Rs.5,000/- per month.

13. Looking at the profession of the claimant as averred in the claim petition as well as in the affidavit in evidence, the claim of the claimant of earning Rs. 5,000/- per month working as a painter seems to be justified. Hence the determination of income as Rs.7,000/- per month by the Tribunal does not seem proper. This Court, on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence [2025:RJ-JP:19401] (5 of 6) [CMA-878/2019] determines the income of the claimant to be Rs.5,000/- per month and thus the loss of income caused to the claimant as regards the calculation of income as per the settled principle of law is as 5000x12x18 = 10,80,000/- and 60% of the same amounts follows to 6,48,000/-. The claimant is also entitled for future prospectus @ 40% which amounts to Rs.2,59,200/-. Hence, loss of income comes to Rs.9,07,200/-. There is no dispute as regards the amount of compensation awarded under the head of diet, transportation and attendant and treatment charges. The claimant has been awarded only Rs. 50,000/- as regards the mental agony, pain and suffering which in opinion of this Court is very meager in the peculiar facts of this case, that is, that the claimant has sustained complete amputation of the left leg below the knee. Therefore, he is entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- under the head of mental agony, pain and suffering. It is submitted by counsel for the claimant that because of amputation of leg, he could not get married and the unmarried person is not taken well in society. Though there cannot be a monetary valuation of the suffering of claimant in the marital life and other enjoyment because of the amputation of his leg, still, the Court deems it fit to award compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- for the future treatment including the change of artificial leg on regular intervals.

14. Accordingly, the award passed by the Court below is modified as under:- Sr. No. Under the head of Amount (in Rs.) i) Loss of income and future prospectus 9,07,200/- [2025:RJ-JP:19401] (6 of 6) [CMA-878/2019] ii) Diet iii) Transportation and attendant iv) Treatment v) Mental agony, pain and suffering 50,000/- 50,000/- 1,00,000/- 5,00,000/- vi) Deprived from marital life and other enjoyment 8,00,000/- vii) Future treatment and change of artificial leg 1,50,000/- Total 25,57,200/-

17. Both the appeals stand disposed of in terms of above. All other application/s stand/s disposed of. The amount of compensation paid to the claimant in view of award dated 09.11.2004 i.e. Rs.4,64,600/- would be part of this total compensation amount.

18. The condition as regards the interest will remain same as per the impugned award. GAURAV SRIVASTAVA /15-16 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J