Rajesh Kumar Son Of Shri Karan ... vs Tata Aig General Insurance ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3321 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 914/2022

Rajesh Kumar Son Of Shri Karan Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of Kheriya, Biloch, Police Station Roopwas, District
Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
                                                       ----Claimant/Appellant
                                   Versus
1.     TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Through
       Its Chief Manager, Registered Office At Penisule Business
       Park, Towar-A, 15Th Floor, G.K. Marg, Loar Parel, Mumbai
       400013 (Insurance Company).
2.     Amit Son Of Shri Ganpat Singh, Resident Of Village
       Rasulpur, Police Station, Kheragarh, District Agra (U.P.)
       (Owner Of The Vehicle).
                                          ----Non-Claimants/Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashindra Singh Rathore for Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Advocate For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Judgment

26/04/2022

This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant (for

short "the claimant") for enhancing the amount of compensation

as awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur (for

short "the Tribunal") in Claim Petition No.171/2019.

Brief facts of the case are that on 20.08.2018 at about 05:30

p.m., claimant-Rajesh Kumar was going on a Motorcycle bearing

Registration No.UP80/EL 8497 along with his brother-in-law Kumar

Sen to village Pai and no sooner did they reach near village

Maniya on Dholpur-Rajakheda Road, Kumar Sen drove the

(2 of 3) [CMA-914/2022]

motorcycle rashly and negligently and hit another motorcycle

No.RJ11/SK 4080, which was coming from opposite direction. In

the said accident both, the claimant as well as Kumar Sen

sustained injuries.

A claim petition was filed by the claimant claiming

compensation. Written statement was filed. Issues were framed

and after hearing both the parties, the Tribunal vide its judgment

dated 12.01.2022 awarded Rs.1,22,570/- as compensation along

with interest @ 6% per annum.

Being dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal has

been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation.

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the amount of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is abysmally low. Counsel

further submits that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of

compensation to the tune of Rs.1,22,570/- despite the fact that

the claimant sustained fracture in his tibia and fibula bone of right

leg, metatarsel bone's fracture in the paws of left leg and fracture

in second proximal phalange of right hand. Learned counsel

further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded a single penny

under the head of loss of earning, discomfort of life and nutritional

diet, hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by the

Tribunal needs to be modified.

Heard and considered.

From a material available on record, it transpires that

according to the Medico Legal Report (MLR) of claimant-Rajesh

Kumar, he sustained injury in his right leg and above paws. In X-

Ray Report (Ex.12), the claimant was found to have sustained

fracture in tibia and fibula bone of right leg and metatarsel bone's

(3 of 3) [CMA-914/2022]

fracture in the paws of left leg. Although, in the X-Ray Report,

fracture was also found to have been caused in second proximal

phalange of the right hand, for which internal fixation was

suggested but the right hand injury, as disclosed in the X-Ray

Report, was not mentioned in the MLR (Ex.11). Therefore, Injury

Report being not corroborated with MLR (Ex.11), was not duly

proved.

In this view of the matter on the basis of fracture in tibia and

fibula bone of right leg and metatarsel bone's fracture of left leg

paws, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- and Rs.15,000/-

respectively for those injuries. In addition to above, the Tribunal

has also awarded Rs.600/- per day for six days during which the

claimant was said to have remained admitted in the hospital and

Rs.53,970/- for the expenditure incurred on his treatment as per

bills (Ex.16, 17 & 18). Admittedly, the claimant having not

sustained any permanent disability. Thus, the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper with which I fully

conquer.

For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in this appeal and

the same being bereft of any merit is liable to dismissed, which

stands dismissed accordingly.

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

Hemant/15

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)