Alok Cinema, Churu, Raj v. Dharam Kanta, Harmada, Jaipur Raj

Judgment

2. Nandu Singh S/o Shri Mangej Singh, R/o Plot No. 76/78, Krishna Nagar-2, Jodla Power House, Behind Balaji Dharam Kanta, Harmada, Jaipur Raj. ----Claimant/Respondent Ramkumar S/o Shri Girdhariram, R/o Village Bhamas, Police Station Jaswantgarh, Teh. Ladnu, Distt. Nagaur Raj. ----Non-claimant No.1/Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4904/2017 Nandu Singh S/o Shri Mangej Singh, R/o Plot No. 76/78, Krishna Nagar-2, Jodla Power House, Behind Balaji Dharamkata, Harmada, Jaipur ----Claimant/Appellant Versus

Ramkumar S/o Shri Girdhariram, R/o Village Bhamas, P.S. Jaswantgarh, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur, Rajasthan Driver And Owner. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Issuing Office Near Alok Cinema, Churu, Rajasthan Insurance Company ----Non-claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hridayesh Singh (4912/2017) Mr. Prashant Joshi (4904/2017) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Joshi (4912/2017) Mr. Hridayesh Singh(4904/2017) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 17/07/2025

1. The present appeals have been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 08.06.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge No.20, Jaipur Metropolitan Headquarter Chomu in MACT Case No.21/2014, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed and compensation of [2025:RJ-JP:26839] (2 of 7) [CMA-4912/2017] Rs.1,65,166/- is awarded in favour of the claimant along with an interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.09.2013, the claimant- Nandu Singh was going to his house from factory on motorcycle No. RJ-14-BU-3946, when he reached near Jodla Power House, a pick up bearing registration No. RJ-14-GA-2125 being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit the motorcycle of the claimant due to which he sustained grievous injuries. An FIR was lodged with regard to the said accident and thereafter, the claim petition was filed by the claimant and prayed for awarding of just and proper compensation.

3. Notice of the claim petition was duly served to the non- claimant No.1 but he chose not to appear before the Court. Therefore, ex parte proceedings were drawn against him on

18.09.2014.

4. The non-claimant No.2- Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition on 28.03.2017 and denied the averments made in the claim petition stating that the driver of the pick up RJ-14-GA- 2125 was not having a valid and effective driving license, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed five issues.

6. In order to substantiate the averments, the claimant examined himself as AW-1 and produced Ex.1 to Ex.61 documents including permanent disability certificate Ex.7.

7. In rebuttal, despite granting opportunity, the non-claimant No.2- Insurance Company did not led any evidence. [2025:RJ-JP:26839] (3 of 7) [CMA-4912/2017]

8. Thereafter, learned Tribunal while deciding all the issues in favour the claimant, awarded a sum of Rs.21,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum vide order dated 30.03.2015.

9. Being aggrieved of the said award dated 30.03.2015, the claimant preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1854/2015, wherein after hearing arguments of respective parties, this Court vide order dated 28.04.2016 though maintained the order passed upon issue Nos. 1 to 3, however, while considering the appeal, this Court remanded the matter back to the learned Tribunal to re-decide issue No.4 relating to quantum. After the said remand, learned Tribunal has re-adjudicated the matter in the light of the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1854/2015 decided on 28.04.2016 and after re-appreciation of the evidence awarded a sum of Rs.1,65,166/- and while giving a setoff of Rs.21,000/- (compensation earlier awarded) by order dated

30.03.2015, awarded the remaining amount of Rs.1,44,166/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition dated 24.04.2014 till its realization.

10. Being aggrieved of which, the non-claimant No.2- Insurance Company preferred S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4912/2017 questioning the amount, the quantum of the compensation awarded in the claim petition.

11. The another S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4904/2017 has been filed by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of compensation.

12. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4912/2017, learned counsel for the non-claimant No.2/appellant- Insurance Company submits that learned Tribunal vide order dated 30.03.2015 has [2025:RJ-JP:26839] (4 of 7) [CMA-4912/2017] earlier awarded a sum of Rs.21,000/- as compensation, however, in subsequent award, the learned Tribunal has enhanced the amount to the tune of Rs.1,44,166/- without any justifiable reason, therefore, the present appeal may be allowed and the impugned award may be set aside.

13. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4904/2017, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits that learned Tribunal has awarded inadequate amount of compensation. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the permanent disability certificate (Ex.17) issued by Medical Board HBK Government District Hospital, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, wherein it has been indicated that the injured suffered permanent disability to the extent of 28.17%. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding just compensation, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal may be modified and the compensation amount awarded under the impugned order may be suitably enhanced.

14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

15. From bare perusal to the impugned award, it reveals that after the remand, learned Tribunal has considered the fact that due to the accident, the injured could not join his duties for a period of seven months (06.09.2013 to 03.04.2014) and from the record of the case, it is revealed that the injured remained hospitalized from 07.09.2013 to 16.09.2013, therefore, after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal has enhanced the compensation to the extent of [2025:RJ-JP:26839] (5 of 7) [CMA-4912/2017] Rs.1,44,166/- as against Rs.21,000/- which was previously awarded.

16. The submission of learned counsel for the non-claimant No.2- Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal has not given any reason for enhancing the earlier award cannot be accepted for the reason that under the impugned award, learned Tribunal has considered the fact that the injured remained hospitalized from

07.09.2013 to 16.09.2013 and could not join the office from

06.09.2013 to 03.04.2014. Learned Tribunal has also considered the medical bills which were borne by the injured and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,65,166/- and while giving a setoff of Rs.21,000/- which was previously awarded.

17. In view of the above discussion, the submissions of the learned counsel for the non-claimant No.2- Insurance Company cannot be accepted and lacks merits.

18. Accordingly, the S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4912/2017 preferred by non-claimant No.2- Insurance Company, is hereby dismissed.

19. So far as, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4904/2017 preferred by the claimant/appellant is concerned, the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has given much emphasis on the point that the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the disability certificate issued by Medical Board. He further submits that the said certificate has been issued by Government Department, therefore, the compensation should have been awarded while assessing permanent disability as indicated therein. He further submits that looking to the facts of the case, the amount awarded to the claimant/appellant under the [2025:RJ-JP:26839] (6 of 7) [CMA-4912/2017] head of 'pain and suffering', 'food and nutrition & Transportation ' etc. is meagre.

20. That from the finding of the learned Tribunal, it is evident that permanent disability certificate was not relied because the doctor who issued the certificate was not examined and said reasoning is duly aligning with the Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Rajesh @ Raju Vs. Yudhvir Singh & Anr. reported in 2008 (7) SCC 305, decided on 13,05.2008, therefore, the argument for considering 28.17% permanent disability lacked merit.

21. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot accept the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimant/appellant, however, this Court find some merit in other submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that looking to the nature of injury and looking to the fact that the injured could not join his duties for a period of seven months from 06.09.2013 to

03.04.2014 and also looking to the fact that he remained hospitalized for the period of 07.09.2013 to 16.09.2013 the amount awarded under the heads of 'pain and suffering', 'food and nutrition & Transportation' seems to be inadequate. Therefore, this Court considered it appropriate to enhance the amount awarded under the head of 'pain and suffering'/Food and nutrition/Transportation.

22. This Court finds that the compensation awarded to the claimants/appellants under the impugned order is required to be enhanced in terms of the table herein below: [2025:RJ-JP:26839] (7 of 7) [CMA-4912/2017] Loss of Income (for non-joining of duties for 7 months (+) (Rs.24,000/-x7) Rs.1,68,000/- Benefits availed under ESI (-) (-) Rs.51,000/- Pain and suffering (+) Medical Expenses (+) Food and nutrition (+) Transportation (+) Total Rs.50,000/- Rs.7,166/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,94,166/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.1,65,166/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.29,000/-

23. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.1,94,166/- from the original amount of Rs.1,65,166/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.29,000/- 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 Rs.29,000/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the realization of the said amount.

24. Accordingly, both the present appeals are decided as under: S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4912/2017 titled as "United India Insurance Company vs. Nandu Singh & Ors." is dismissed. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4904/2017 titled as "Nandu Singh & Ors. vs. Ram Kumar & Ors." is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove.

25. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. DEEPA-6-7 (MANEESH SHARMA),J