Akshay Jain Son Of Shri Motichand ... vs Ghanshyam Sharma Son Of Shri ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4969 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1045/2022

Akshay Jain Son Of Shri Motichand Jain, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o A-568, Govind Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1.      Ghanshyam Sharma Son Of Shri Vishambhar Dayal
        Sharma, R/o Plot No. B-181, Jamnapuri Colony, Murlipura
        Scheme, Jaipur.
        (Owner Of Vehicle).
2.      National Insurance Company, Address Ambedkar Circle,
        Bhawani Singh Road, L.I.C. Building Jeewan Prakash
        Jaipur
        (Insurance Company).
3.      Ravindra   Singh      Son      Of     Shri     Rajendra    Singh,   R/o
        Rooppura, Tehsil Nawan, District Nagor Rajasthan
        (Driver Of Vehicle).
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Nidhi Khandelwal, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judgment 20/07/2022

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant

(for short, 'the claimant') against the judgment dated 22.11.2021

passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan,

Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') in MAC Case no. 604/2017,

whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,29,922/- as

compensation in favour of the claimant alongwith interest @ 6%

p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition.

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the

amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is at the lower

side. At the time of accident, the claimant was working as a Cargo

(2 of 2) [CMA-1045/2022]

agent and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, but the claimant's

income has not been properly assessed by the Tribunal. She

further submits that the claimant was operated thrice, but the

Tribunal has awarded the amount for two operations only. Hence,

the impugned judgment and award needs to be modified and the

amount of compensation is required to be enhanced.

Heard. Considered.

From a perusal of the material on record, it is noticed

that the alleged accident took place on 1.6.2017 at about 10.45

PM when the claimant was going in his Motor Cycle No. RJ 14-HS-

0473 from Khasa Kothi Chauraha to Malviya Nagar. Although it

was averred by the claimant that at the time of accident, he was

earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by working as Transport Luggage

Agent, but in the absence of any documentary evidence to this

effect, the Tribunal assessed' the claimant's income as Rs. 5382/-

per month i.e. Rs. 64,584/- p.a on the basis of the minimum

wages prevalent at the relevant point of time.

As per discharge ticket (Ex.-132), the claimant's one

operation was done on 2.6.2017 and as per Ex. 16, the claimant's

another operation was done on 5.10.2017. In this way, for two

operations, the claimant has rightly been awarded Rs. 10,000/-

(Rs. 5000/- for each operation) by the Tribunal.

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

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

which stands dismissed accordingly.

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

Dk/21

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)