Rajasthan High Court
Rajpal vs Jagdish Lal And Ors on 25 January, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2676/2013
Rajpal S/o Harji Lal Meena, Age 23 years, R/o Village Sohela
Tehsil Peeplu Distt. Tonk.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Jagdish Lal S/o Kaluram Nayak R/o Village Jaula PS Baroni
Distt. Tonk.
2. Jagdish Narayan S/o Dhanna Lal Jat, Age 30 years R/o Haji
Kala Saganer Bajar Jaipur.
3. The New India Assurance Company Limited through its
regional manager, regional office at Nehru Place, Tonk Road,
Jaipur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Jain through VC
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
25/01/2022
This appeal has been filed by claimant for enhancement of
compensation assailing the order dated 28.01.2013 passed by
MACT, Tonk in claim petition No.153/2011 whereby compensation
of Rs.3,43,866/- along with interest @ 7% per annum has been
awarded in favour of claimants
Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant had
filed a claim petition under Sections 140 & 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 to claim compensation for injuries sustained by him in
accident occurred on 09.12.2010, which was allowed and the
Tribunal has awarded compensation as aforesaid. However,
claimant has preferred this appeal on 01.07.2013 for
enhancement of compensation. Since appeal has been filed with
delay of 57 days, therefore, application under Section 5 of
(2 of 3) [CMA-2676/2013]
Limitation Act has been filed. After filing of appeal, appellant has
.not pursued the matter and now matter is listed before the Court
As far as delay is concerned, for reasons mentioned in
application, the same is allowed. The delay of 57 days in filing
appeal is condoned.
Heard counsel for appellant on merits of appeal.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that it is a case where
claimant a young boy of 20 years, who was an agriculturist and
earning Rs.6,000/- per month, sustained 27% permanent
disability as his right leg was shortened by 1.25 Inch. He further
submits that on account of contributory negligence, the Tribunal
reduced compensation by 20% which is unjustified. Appellant
argued that on account of shortening of leg he was entitled for
special damages and entitled for higher amount of compensation
for pain and suffering. He also submits that future prospects have
also not been considered and awarded.
From perusal of judgment dated 28.01.2013, it is clear that
accident was occurred with insured truck when appellant was
driving his motorcycle. It is an admitted case of appellant that he
was not having a driving license to drive motorcycle. The Tribunal,
while deciding issue Nos.1 and 4 has observed that appellant was
not having knowledge of driving motorcycle and he was not having
a license, therefore, he was also held negligent for the accident
and accordingly, appellant was held liable for 20% on account of
his own rash and negligent driving of motorcycle. Such findings of
the Tribunal are justified and rationale, which call for no
interference.
Further it reveals that appellant did not lead any evidence
about his income and accordingly the Tribunal treated him an
(3 of 3) [CMA-2676/2013]
unskilled labour and minimum wages payable as per Government
circular was considered. The accident was occurred on 09.12.2010
and as per prevailing rate of minimum wages, monthly income of
injured was assessed as 3000/- per month and his permanent
disability as per certificate (Exhibit-12) has also been considered
and by using multiplier of 18, compensation was assessed. In
head of pain and suffering, compensation has also been assessed.
Further, bills of medical treatment were also taken into
consideration and medical expenses were also assessed while
computing compensation. The Tribunal assessed total
compensation to the tune of Rs.4,29,833/-, which is just and
reasonable compensation in case of injuries sustained by
appellant. As appellant was held contributory negligent, to the
extent of 20%, as discussed hereinabove, net compensation of
Rs.3,43,866/- have been assessed payable to appellant-claimant,
which cannot be termed as inadequate or unjust. More
particularly, in backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case, where appeal was preferred wayback in 2013 and has not
been pursued thereafter, it is settled law that claim of
compensation may not be taken as a windfall, and if the Tribunal
has assessed and awarded just compensation, Appellate Court
ordinarily should not interfere with the same.
Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain this appeal
and same is accordingly dismissed.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN /119
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
