Mohan Lal S/o Sh. Prabhati Lal, R/o Teej Ki Road, At Present Trans v. Mukesh Sharma S/o Sh. Rameshwar Sharma, R/o Ladia Mo

Judgment

3. Mukesh Sharma S/o Sh. Rameshwar Sharma, R/o Ladia Mo- halla, District Alwar - Driver Vehicle No. Rj-02-GA-1625 Atul Sharma S/o Sh. Sukhdev Sharma, R/o 89, Panchvati, Scheme No. 7, District Alwar - Owner Vehicle No. Rj-02-GA- 1625 Bema Policy No. 141700/31/06/01/00012634 Bema Period 16/3/2007 To 15/3/2008 United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office 1, Ashok Circle, Alwar, District Alwar, Regional Office, Re- gional Manager Sahara Chamber, Tonk Road, Jaipur ----Non-claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. N. Tiwari on behalf of Mr. Shobhit Tiwari, Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh on behalf of Mr. J. K. Singhi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 07/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 28.02.2009 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned MACT/Tri- bunal"), in Claim Petition No.247/2007, whereby the learned Tri- bunal allowed the claim petition, and awarded a sum of Rs.41,476/- as compensation, along with interest of 6% per an- num, to the claimant/appellant.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

18.04.2007, the claimant/appellant was going on the Moped, bearing registration no. RJ-02-7M-8386, from his house to Alwar City, when a Tempo, bearing registration No.RJ-02-GA-1625, col- [2025:RJ-JP:24968] (2 of 5) [CMA-3008/2009] lided with his moped near the NEB Expansion Scheme, as a result of which the claimant/appellant sustained injuries.

3. Subsequently, the claimant/appellant filed the claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the claimant/appellant was aged 43 years and was earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- at the time of the accident, and that as a result of the accident, sus- tained a permanent disability of more than 15%, due to which he has been rendered unable to work, the claimant/appellant accord- ingly prayed for appropriate compensation to be awarded.

4. Non-claimants/Respondents No.1-Mukesh Sharma (driver of the tempo) & 2-Atul Sharma (owner of the tempo) filed a reply to the claim petition, denying the averments made by the claimant/ appellant. They further submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant/appellant and prayed the dis- missal of the claim petition.

5. Non-claimant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company, also filed a separate reply to the claim petition, wherein, the Insurance Company denied the averments made by the claimant/appellant, and further contended that non-claimant/respondent No.1 (Mukesh Sharma, the driver of the tempo) did not hold a valid driving license for operating the said vehicle, which was a violation of the insurance policy, hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant/appellant.

6. Based on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed five is- sues. [2025:RJ-JP:24968] (3 of 5) [CMA-3008/2009]

7. In order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim petition, the claimant/appellant examined himself as AW-1 and produced sixteen documents (Ex-1 to Ex-16). These docu- ments included the chargesheet (Ex-1), FIR (Ex-2), Site Plan (Ex- 3), Written Report (Ex-4), injury report (Ex-5), X-ray Report (Ex- 6), Mechanical Inspection report Luna (Ex-7), Seizure memo Tempo (Ex-8), Notice u/s 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act (RC) (Ex- 9), Mechanic Inspection (Ex-10), RC Tempo (Ex-11), Insurance Policy (Ex-12), Permanent Disability Certificate (Ex-13), Receipt (Ex-14), Discharge Ticket (Ex-15) and Bills for Medical Treatment (Ex-16).

8. The non-claimant/respondent did not laid any oral or docu- mentary evidence to substantiate their averments.

9. That the learned Tribunal after hearing arguments made by all the parties and deciding Issue Nos.1 to 4 in favor of the claimant/appellant, partly allowed the claim, vide and award dated

28.02.2009, and awarded a compensation of Rs.41,476/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum in favour of the claimant/appellant.

10. Being aggrieved of which the present appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant for enhancement.

11. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal was inadequate and considering the injuries and the permanent disability as evidenced by the Permanent Disability Certificate (Exhibit-13) issued by Medical Board of Government RDBP Jaipuria Hospital. Therefore, [2025:RJ-JP:24968] (4 of 5) [CMA-3008/2009] prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned award may be modified.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned award and submitted that the impugned award is based on correct appreciation of the facts and established law, and was passed after due examination of pleadings and evi- dence of the parties. Hence, no interference is required by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

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

14. It is an admitted position that the injured- Mohan Lal sus- tained injuries in the road accident dated 18.04.2007 and he has suffered permanent physical impairment of 15%, but the learned Tribunal awarded a meagre sum of Rs.8,000/- towards these in- juries.

15. From a perusal of record, it is evident that the injured sustained a fracture and remained hospitalized for two days, despite only Rs.200/- has been awarded towards the said hospital- isation. The facts clearly show that the accident caused a 15% permanent disability. The Medical Board of Government RDBP Jaipuria Hospital observed that the injured would face difficulty in squatting, kneeling, and walking on the floor and uneven surfaces. This will have impact on the rest of the life on the claimant/appel- lant.

16. Considering the Permanent Disability Certificate issued by Govt. RDBP Jaipuria Hospital (Ex-13) and taking into account the [2025:RJ-JP:24968] (5 of 5) [CMA-3008/2009] minimum wages prevalent at the date of the accident, this Court finds that the compensation awarded by the impugned award re- quires modification as under: Loss of Income(+) Rs.73x30x12x14x10% = Rs.36,792/- Future Prospects 25% (+) Rs.9,198/- Mental & Physical Pain (+) Rs.20,000/- Medical Bill (Rs.13,275/-) +Grievous Injury(Rs.5,000/-) +Simple Injury (Rs.3,000/-) +Hospitalization(Rs.4,211/-) Rs.25,486/- Total Rs.91,476/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.41,476/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.50,000/-

17. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation to Rs.91,476/- from the original amount of Rs.41,476/-. The Insurance Company is directed to de- posit the enhanced amount of Rs.50,000/- before the learned con- cerned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal within sixty days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant/appellant is also enti- tled to get interest on the enhanced amount Rs.50,000/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the said amount.

18. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced as per the terms indicated above.

19. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Seema/50 (MANEESH SHARMA),J

: Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. N. Tiwari on behalf of Mr. Shobhit Tiwari, Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh on behalf of Mr. J. K. Singhi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 07/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 28.02.2009 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned MACT/Tri- bunal"), in Claim Petition No.247/2007, whereby the learned Tri- bunal allowed the claim petition, and awarded a sum of Rs.41,476/- as compensation, along with interest of 6% per an- num, to the claimant/appellant.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

18.04.2007, the claimant/appellant was going on the Moped, bearing registration no. RJ-02-7M-8386, from his house to Alwar City, when a Tempo, bearing registration No.RJ-02-GA-1625, col- [2025:RJ-JP:24968] (2 of 5) [CMA-3008/2009] lided with his moped near the NEB Expansion Scheme, as a result of which the claimant/appellant sustained injuries.

3. Subsequently, the claimant/appellant filed the claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the claimant/appellant was aged 43 years and was earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- at the time of the accident, and that as a result of the accident, sus- tained a permanent disability of more than 15%, due to which he has been rendered unable to work, the claimant/appellant accord- ingly prayed for appropriate compensation to be awarded.

4. Non-claimants/Respondents No.1-Mukesh Sharma (driver of the tempo) & 2-Atul Sharma (owner of the tempo) filed a reply to the claim petition, denying the averments made by the claimant/ appellant. They further submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant/appellant and prayed the dis- missal of the claim petition.

5. Non-claimant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company, also filed a separate reply to the claim petition, wherein, the Insurance Company denied the averments made by the claimant/appellant, and further contended that non-claimant/respondent No.1 (Mukesh Sharma, the driver of the tempo) did not hold a valid driving license for operating the said vehicle, which was a violation of the insurance policy, hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant/appellant.

6. Based on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed five is- sues. [2025:RJ-JP:24968] (3 of 5) [CMA-3008/2009]

7. In order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim petition, the claimant/appellant examined himself as AW-1 and produced sixteen documents (Ex-1 to Ex-16). These docu- ments included the chargesheet (Ex-1), FIR (Ex-2), Site Plan (Ex- 3), Written Report (Ex-4), injury report (Ex-5), X-ray Report (Ex- 6), Mechanical Inspection report Luna (Ex-7), Seizure memo Tempo (Ex-8), Notice u/s 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act (RC) (Ex- 9), Mechanic Inspection (Ex-10), RC Tempo (Ex-11), Insurance Policy (Ex-12), Permanent Disability Certificate (Ex-13), Receipt (Ex-14), Discharge Ticket (Ex-15) and Bills for Medical Treatment (Ex-16).

8. The non-claimant/respondent did not laid any oral or docu- mentary evidence to substantiate their averments.

9. That the learned Tribunal after hearing arguments made by all the parties and deciding Issue Nos.1 to 4 in favor of the claimant/appellant, partly allowed the claim, vide and award dated

28.02.2009, and awarded a compensation of Rs.41,476/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum in favour of the claimant/appellant.

10. Being aggrieved of which the present appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant for enhancement.

11. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal was inadequate and considering the injuries and the permanent disability as evidenced by the Permanent Disability Certificate (Exhibit-13) issued by Medical Board of Government RDBP Jaipuria Hospital. Therefore, [2025:RJ-JP:24968] (4 of 5) [CMA-3008/2009] prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned award may be modified.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned award and submitted that the impugned award is based on correct appreciation of the facts and established law, and was passed after due examination of pleadings and evi- dence of the parties. Hence, no interference is required by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

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

14. It is an admitted position that the injured- Mohan Lal sus- tained injuries in the road accident dated 18.04.2007 and he has suffered permanent physical impairment of 15%, but the learned Tribunal awarded a meagre sum of Rs.8,000/- towards these in- juries.

15. From a perusal of record, it is evident that the injured sustained a fracture and remained hospitalized for two days, despite only Rs.200/- has been awarded towards the said hospital- isation. The facts clearly show that the accident caused a 15% permanent disability. The Medical Board of Government RDBP Jaipuria Hospital observed that the injured would face difficulty in squatting, kneeling, and walking on the floor and uneven surfaces. This will have impact on the rest of the life on the claimant/appel- lant.

16. Considering the Permanent Disability Certificate issued by Govt. RDBP Jaipuria Hospital (Ex-13) and taking into account the [2025:RJ-JP:24968] (5 of 5) [CMA-3008/2009] minimum wages prevalent at the date of the accident, this Court finds that the compensation awarded by the impugned award re- quires modification as under: Loss of Income(+) Rs.73x30x12x14x10% = Rs.36,792/- Future Prospects 25% (+) Rs.9,198/- Mental & Physical Pain (+) Rs.20,000/- Medical Bill (Rs.13,275/-) +Grievous Injury(Rs.5,000/-) +Simple Injury (Rs.3,000/-) +Hospitalization(Rs.4,211/-) Rs.25,486/- Total Rs.91,476/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.41,476/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.50,000/-

17. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation to Rs.91,476/- from the original amount of Rs.41,476/-. The Insurance Company is directed to de- posit the enhanced amount of Rs.50,000/- before the learned con- cerned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal within sixty days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant/appellant is also enti- tled to get interest on the enhanced amount Rs.50,000/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the said amount.

18. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced as per the terms indicated above.

19. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Seema/50 (MANEESH SHARMA),J