Rajasthan High Court
Hansraj S/O Shri Bajranj Lal Bairwa vs Satyanarayan Chawla S/O Shri Bhorilal on 9 April, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:16823]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6155/2019
Hansraj S/o Shri Bajranj Lal Bairwa, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Village Basda Nadi, Tehsil Boli, District Sawaimadhopur Hal
Getor, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Satyanarayan Chawla S/o Shri Bhorilal, R/o Makan No.
285, Shyampuri, Hida Ki Mori, Ramganj, Police Station
Ramganj, Jaipur. (Driver And Owner Of Vehicle Mini Bus
No. Gj-12-T-4823)
2. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through
Branch Manager Branch Office- E-8, E P I A, Sitapura
Industrial Area, Jaipur. Policy No. 10003/31/15/299593,
Validity Date 10.09.2014 To 09.09.2015. (Insurance
Company Of Vehicle Mini Bus No. Gj-12-T-4823)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 09/04/2024 The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-claimant (for short 'the claimant') dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 09.10.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1., Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'The Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.566/2015 (CIS No.01968/15) titled as Hansraj V. (Downloaded on 19/04/2024 at 09:09:37 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:16823] (2 of 3) [CMA-6155/2019] Satyanarayan Chawala and Anr, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,21,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition as compensation in favour of the claimant.
Learned counsel for the claimant submits that Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence led by the parties and decided the Issue No.3 against the established principle of law. Learned counsel for the claimant further submits that claimant had suffered the fracture of Tibia and Fibula bones but the Tribunal only granted Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and treatment etc. Learned counsel for the claimant also submits that he was earning only Rs.18,000/- per month by working as a Mason. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of income. So, the judgment and award of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimant and also submitted during the arguments that the Insurance Company would not recover the amount which has already been paid to the claimant from respondent No.1.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the claimant as well as Insurance Company.
Claimant failed to adduce any evidence regarding permanent disability. No disability certificate was produced during the evidence. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical agony, future loss of income, nutritious diet, transportation etc. and rightly awarded Rs.71,000/- under the head of treatment. So, the present appeal (Downloaded on 19/04/2024 at 09:09:37 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:16823] (3 of 3) [CMA-6155/2019] being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stand(s) dismissed accordingly.
It is also made clear that the Insurance Company would not recover the amount of compensation paid by them from respondent No.1.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH /35 (Downloaded on 19/04/2024 at 09:09:37 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)