Harish Alias Harsh vs Mahaveer And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1593 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2602/2014

Harish Alias Harsh S/o Shri Dharmraj Jayaswal, aged about 4
years, through natural guardian mother Santosh W/o Dharamraj
Jayaswal, R/o Babai, P.S. Indergarh, Distt. Bundi, at present R/o
2/347, Housing Board, Sawaimadhopur
                                                       ----Appellant-Claimant
                                   Versus
1.     Mahaveer S/o Shri Gopi Lal Gurjar, R/o Heerapura, P.S.
Indragarh, Distt. Bundi (Driver of Vehicle Motor Cycle No. RJ 14-
ST-7725)
2.     Hanuman Prasad S/o Jagdish Prasad Sahu, R/o 59-A, Shiv
Nagar, Girdharipura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Owner of Motor Cycle
No. RJ 14-ST-7725)
3.     IFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. through
Manager, 8 Katewa Bhawan, Opposite Ganpati Plaja, M.I. Road,
Jaipur (Raj.) (Insurer Motor Cycle No. RJ 14-ST-7725)
                                               ----Respondents/defendants

For Appellant(s)          :    Mr. Kawal Singh Loha
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Ritesh Jain



       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

                                Judgment

17/02/2022

The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the

appellant-claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for

enhancement of compensation, assailing the impugned judgment

dated 20.03.2014 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim

case No. 186/2011, whereby compensation of Rs. 1,09,490/- has

been awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of

the claimant-appellant.

(2 of 3) [CMA-2602/2014]

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that the

appellant-claimant had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation

of Rs. 6,37,000/- which was partly allowed and the Tribunal has

awarded compensation as aforesaid in lower side. Counsel further

submits that at the time of accident, the appellant-claimant

sustained 50% permanent disability, but his disability certificate

was not allowed to be taken on record. Counsel requested the

Court to take judicial notice of the same and pass appropriate

orders for enhancement of the claim.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the claimant-

appellant. Counsel submits that when the disability certificate was

not allowed to be taken on record and the same was not

exhibited, hence, the same cannot be allowed to read as evidence

now at the appellate stage. Counsel further submits that even

application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking the said

document on record was not submitted by the claimant-appellant.

Hence, now the prayer made by the counsel for the claimant-

appellant should not be accepted. Lastly, counsel for the

respondents argued that the Tribunal has decided the matter after

appreciating the evidence and the documents available on the

record which needs no interference of this Court.

Heard counsel appearing for the respective parties.

After taking into consideration the facts available on record,

the Tribunal has assessed the compensation of Rs. 1,09,490/-

which is just and reasonable in the case of injuries sustained by

the appellant-claimant and the same cannot be termed as

inadequate or unjust. It is the settled position of law that

(3 of 3) [CMA-2602/2014]

whenever any document is not exhibited on the record of the trial

Court, the same cannot be taken into consideration whenever the

matter is finally adjudicated. Here in this case the disability

certificate of the claimant was not exhibited, hence the Tribunal

has decided the claim of the claimant on the basis of the evidence

and documents available on the record. Thus the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by the claimant

appears to be just and proper, which needs no interference of this

Court.

It is the settled law that claim of compensation may not be

taken as a windfall, if the Tribunal has assessed and awarded just

compensation, the Appellate Court ordinarily should not interfere

with the same.

Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain this appeal

and the same is hereby dismissed.

All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to

the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

Ritu/14

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)