Kanaram vs Upendra Kumar Paliwal And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4546 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1132/2017

Kanaram son of Shri Ramlal, resident of Ambedkar Nagar, Village
Manoharpur, Tehsil, Shahpura, District, Jaipur
                                                           ---Claimant-Appellant
                                     Versus
1. Upendra Kumar Paliwal son of Shri Ram Prasad Paliwal,
resident of Village Saiwad, Tehsil Jamwaragarh, District Jaipur
(Driver Roadways Bus No. RJ-14-P-9996)
2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur through
Managing       Director,   Parivahan        Marg,      Chomu      House,   Jaipur
(registered owner of Roadways Bus No.RJ-14-P-9996)
                                                ---Non-Claimant-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Bhargava, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sangita, Sai, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Judgment

06/07/2022

Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned

judgment and award dated 10.01.2017 passed by Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to

as 'Tribunal') in MAC case No.59/2012 by which the compensation

of Rs. 86, 656/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant-

appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the

claimant-appellant filed the claim petition under Section 163A of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') before

the Tribunal to claim compensation to the injuries sustained by

(2 of 3) [CMA-1132/2017]

him in the accident occurred on 07.01.2011, which was allowed

and the Tribunal has awarded compensation as indicated above.

However, being dissatisfied with quantum of compensation,

the claimant-appellant has preferred the present appeal for

enhancement of compensation.

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that

looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant, a very

petty amount of compensation has been awarded which needs

suitable enhancement by this Court.

Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the

arguments raised by the counsel for the claimant-appellant and

submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the

claimant-appellant has correctly taken into consideration all the

factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of

evidence produced before it, thus the impugned judgment and

award does not call for any interference by this Court.

Heard counsel for the parties on merits of appeal.

Perusal of the judgment indicates that the Tribunal has

assessed the compensation for the injuries sustained by the

claimant-appellant and after assessing of the same, compensation

has been determined by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 86, 656/-.

The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for

the injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant appears to be just

and proper and the same cannot be treated as inadequate.

It is a well settled proposition of law that the claimant-

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.

(3 of 3) [CMA-1132/2017]

In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court is not inclined to entertain the present appeal.

In view of the matter, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

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

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

PRAVESH/63

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)