Rajasthan High Court
Rakesh Kumar S/O Ganpatram vs Pawan Kumar S/O Shri Ramkumar on 21 September, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 151/2021
Rakesh Kumar S/o Ganpatram, Aged 27 Year, R/o Sukhabas,
Tehsil Rajgadh District Churu (Raj)
----Appellant (Claimant)
Versus
1. Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Ramkumar, R/o Brahmino Ka Bash
Police Station Hamirvas Tehsil Rajgadh District Churu
(Rajasthan) (Owner And Driver Of Vehicle Of Jeep No. RJ
10 UA 2610)
2. H.D.F.C Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Office
No.2, Third Flour C-98, Sanghvee Upasna Tawar, Shubhas
Marg C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001 (Rajasthan) (Insurance
Company Vehicle Of Jeep No. RJ 10 UA 2610)
----Respondents (Non-Claimant No.1 & 2)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pavan Kumar Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha
Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment / Order
21/09/2022
Matter comes upon application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Application stands allowed, for the reasons stated therein.
The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard on
merits.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant for
enhancement of compensation assailing the award dated
16.01.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Jhunjhunu (Raj.) in M.A.C.T No.96/2014, whereby, compensation
(2 of 4) [CMA-151/2021]
of Rs.38,400/- has been granted along with interest @ 7% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition in favour of the
appellant-claimant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant-
claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166/140 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act of 1988') to
claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the
accident occurred on 03.01.2014, which was partly allowed and
the Tribunal has awarded compensation as aforesaid.
However, being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation, the appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal for
enhancement.
Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that
while deciding issue No.2, the Tribunal has committed an error in
holding that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of
the appellant-claimant. Learned counsel further submits that there
was no such evidence available on the record before the Tribunal
to record such finding. Learned counsel submits that while
assessing the compensation is very petty and inadequate amount
has been granted, which needs suitable enhanced by this Court.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company has opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel
for the appellant-claimant and submits that the Tribunal has not
committed any error while deciding issue No.2 and holding that
there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the
appellant-claimant also. Learned counsel submits that the accident
has occurred in middle of the road and after investigation, police
has submitted charge-sheet against the appellant-claimant as well
as the respondent No.1, driver of the offending vehicle. Learned
(3 of 4) [CMA-151/2021]
counsel further submits that under these circumstances, the
Tribunal has recorded a cogent finding that there was 50%
contributory negligence on the part of the appellant-claimant also.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company
further submits that the appellant-claimant has sustained two
grievous injuries for which the Tribunal has passed an order of
granting Rs.20,000/-. Learned counsel submits that for the
medical bills, a sum of Rs.34,196/- has been awarded. Learned
counsel submits that after the accident, the appellant-claimant
remained admitted in hospital for a period of about 15 months and
under this head, a lumpsum amount of Rs.22,500/- has been
awarded. Learned counsel submits that amount so determined by
the Tribunal is just and proper, which needs no interference by this
court.
Heard and considered the arguments raised by the counsel
for both the parties.
In the present case, the appellant-claimant met with an
accident on 03.01.2014. A perusal of the impugned award
indicates that the accident has occurred in middle of the road and
after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the
appellant-claimant as well as the respondent No.1, driver of the
offending vehicle. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any
error in deciding issue No.2 against the appellant-claimant.
This Court finds that in the aforesaid accident, the appellant-
claimant has not sustained any permanent disability and no such
certificate has been produced on the record.
Impugned award indicates that the appellant-claimant has
sustained two grievous injuries for which adequate amount of
compensation has been assessed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has
(4 of 4) [CMA-151/2021]
assessed the compensation for the grievous injuries, hospital
charges, reimbursement of medical claim and in the head of
physical and mental pain and suffering also and has computed
the compensation in favour of the appellant-claimant, i.e., a sum
of Rs.76,696/-. Since there was 50% contributory negligence on
the part of the appellant-claimant, the Tribunal has deducted 50%
amount of determined compensation and passed an award of
Rs.38,400/- in favour of the appellant-claimant, which appears to
be just and proper and the same cannot be treated as inadequate.
It is the settle proposition of law that the appellant-claimant
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 the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present
case, this Court is not inclined to entertain this appeal.
In that view of the matter, the appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Sanjay Kumawat-24
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
