HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No v. 1. Rakesh Meena S/o Shaintan Meena, R/o Gram Post Nevta Tehsil Sanganer Distt. Jaipur

Judgment

1. Rakesh Meena S/o Shaintan Meena, R/o Gram Post Nevta Tehsil Sanganer Distt. Jaipur, Rajasthan Bus Driver

2. Vivekanand Institute Of Technology, Nri Road, Sisiyawas, Jagatpura, Jaipur. Bus Owner

3. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Se- nior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, C-302, Upasana Tower, Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Insurer Of Bus ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Ram Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjali Assat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 03/07/2025 Order

1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 20.09.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tri- bunal’) in claim case No.49/2015 titled as Akeeba Nagauri Vs. Rakesh Meena and Ors., whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant has been partly allowed and an award of Rs.3,35,728/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum has been passed.

2. Brief facts of the matter are that on 06.08.2014 the appel- lant (aged 11 at the time of the incident) was traveling to her [2025:RJ-JP:24554] (2 of 5) [CMA-5879/2017] school in a van, when a bus bearing no. RJ-14-PB-8818 being driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with the van, as a result of which the appellant sustained serious injuries on various parts of her body. An FIR was also filed against Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the appellant, through her father, sought compensa- tion for the injuries she faced before the learned Tribunal.

3. The respondents, No. 1 and 2, filed their reply stating that the said incident was not attributable to them, and that instead the driver of the van, in which the appellant sat, was negligent. They further pleaded that the driver of the said school van bearing registration no. RJ 14 SC 4067 and the insurer were not im- pleaded. Subsequently, respondent No.3 filed their reply and con- tended that their was a delay of 12 days in filing the FIR, and that the appellant has filed the claim petition in collusion with respon- dent No.1 and 2 for the purpose of getting compensation, grounds regarding non-impleading of necessary parties and valid driving li- cense were also raised.

4. On behalf of the appellant-claimant, father of the appellant was examined as AW-1 and Chhotu Gurjar as AW-2, and docu- mentary evidence Exs-1 to 111 was exhibited in support of the claim.

6. No evidence was led by the respondent(s). That after hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,35,728/- with 7.5% interest, including medical bills of Rs. 2,18,228/-, for 30.30% permanent disable- ment, vide impugned award dated 20.09.2017. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 20.09.2017, [2025:RJ-JP:24554] (3 of 5) [CMA-5879/2017] the appellant prefers this appeal for enhancement of compensa- tion.

7. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as per the admitted facts, the injured claimant had suffered 30.30% permanent disability and despite that the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental and physical pains. He further submits that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, Na- tional Insurance Co. Ltd. and another reported in 2013 ACJ 2445, looking to the permanent disability of the appellant, the learned Tribunal should have awarded as Rs.3,00,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, he prays that the amount awarded may be enhanced.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-HDFC Ergo General Insurance company Ltd. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned award & prayed for rejection of the appeal.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case and also the relevant citations so relied upon by the counsel for the appellant.

10. A bare perusal of the record of the case reveals that the ap- pellant Akeeba Nagauri aged 11 years at the time of the accident, has suffered 30.30% permanent disability due to the accident and while calculating the amount of compensation, the learned Tri- bunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head ‘mental and physical agony’, whereas in Mallikarjun (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: [2025:RJ-JP:24554] (4 of 5) [CMA-5879/2017] “...we are of the view that the appropriate com- pensation on all other heads in addition to the ac- tual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent dis- ability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take dif- ferent yardstick.” Accordingly, since in the case at hand, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant has sustained 30.30% permanent disability, as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, she is entitled to get the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of said injury.

11. Therefore, the present appeal is partly accepted. The com- pensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal vide is en- hanced by Rs.2,00,000/- in addition, and the compensation to the appellant shall be paid in accordance with the table indicated be- low: Pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience, and discomforts, etc., and loss of ameni- ties in life on account of permanent dis- ability. Rs.3,00,000/- Medical Bill reimbursement Period of hospitalisation Rs.2,18,228/- Rs.7,500/- Nutritious food and hospital transport Rs.10,000/- Total Amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal Rs.5,35,728/- (-) Rs.3,35,728/- [2025:RJ-JP:24554] (5 of 5) [CMA-5879/2017] Enhanced amount Rs.2,00,000/-

12. In light of the facts of the matter and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malikkarjun (Supra), the present ap- peal is partly allowed, and accordingly the award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to Rs.5,35,728/- from the original amount of Rs.3,35,728/-. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.2,00,000/- before the learned con- cerned Tribunal within 60 (Sixty) days from the date of passing of this order. The claimants are also entitled to get interest on the re- maining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of presentation until the realization of the said amount.

13. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. SOURAV /102 (MANEESH SHARMA),J