Prem Devi Wife Of Son Of Shri ... vs Surajmal S/O Shri Bahgwan Sahai
2022 Latest Caselaw 4492 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 321/2020

Prem Devi Wife Of Shri Gholuram, Aged About 39 Years,
Resident Of Dhani Dantla Ki Tan, Bishangarh, Tehsil Shahpura,
District Jaipur (Raj)
                                                         ----Appellant/Claimant
                                    Versus
1.     Surajmal S/o Shri Bahgwan Sahai,                          Resident Of Dhani
       Midhawali Tan Rajpura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur
       (Raj) (At Present Vehicle Driver No. Uk-18-3616)
2.     Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Jitendra Prasad Agarwal, Resident
       Of B-748, Lajpat Nagar, P.S. Gadkar, District Muradabad
       (U.P.) (At Present Vehicle Owner No. Uk-18-3616)
3.     The    Oriental     Insurance         Company             Limited,    Through
       Authorised Officer, Office Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra
       Road, Jaipur District Jaipur (Raj) (At Present Insurer
       Company Vehicle No. Uk-18-3616, Valid Upto 01.08.2015
       To          31.07.2016              Insurance                Policy       No.
       253500/31/2016/2777)
                                           ----Respondents/Non-Claimants

For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Vikram Yadav



       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

                                 Judgment

05/07/2022

Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the

Act of 1988') for enhancement of compensation, assailing the

impugned judgment and award dated 30.09.2019 passed by the

Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District Jaipur

(Raj.) (for short 'the Tribunal') in MAC Case No. 179/2016

(2 of 3) [CMA-321/2020]

whereby a compensation of Rs. 68,644/- along with interest @ 9%

per annum has been awarded in her favour.

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the

appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166/140 of the Act of

1988 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her in an

accident occurred on 09.05.2016, which was allowed and the

Tribunal has awarded the compensation as indicated above.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of

compensation, the appellant-claimant has submitted this appeal

for enhancement of compensation.

Heard counsel for the appellant on merits.

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that in

the aforesaid accident, the appellant has sustained 10%

permanent disability but a very meager amount of Rs. 68,444/-

has been awarded, which needs suitable enhancement by this

Court.

Heard. Considered the arguments raised by the counsel for

the appellant claimant.

In the present case, the appellant claimant met with an

accident on 09.05.2016 and on account of the injuries sustained

by her, she has suffered 10% permanent disability. The Tribunal

has assessed the compensation for the injuries sustained by her

and considering her 10% permanent disability, after assessment

of compensation under all the heads, total compensation of Rs.

68,644/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of

filing of claim petition has been awarded in favour of the claimant

appellant. The quantum of compensation as assessed by the

Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable and the same cannot

be treated as inadequate.

(3 of 3) [CMA-321/2020]

It is well settled proposition of law that the appellant may

not claim compensation as a windfall, and if the compensation

assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper, the same needs no

interference by the Court of appeal. In totality of the facts and

circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to entertain

the present appeal.

In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant-

claimant is hereby dismissed.

All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

Ritu/62

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)