Rajasthan High Court
Sunita Singhal vs Shamsher Singh And Ors on 11 March, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:11934]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 271/2004
Sunita Singhal D/o Shri Hukam Chand Agrawal, aged about 20
years, R/o 2, Mayur Colony, Bhimganj Mandi, Kota Junction,
Kota.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Shamsher Singh Rana S/o Pradhan Singh Rana, R/o
Village Nihadi, Police Station Dharkula District Gurdaspur,
Punjab, At Present Army Driver No. 15387717 A.3
Company Military 18 Infantry Division Signal Regiment
A.r.e.n. 540 Nayapura, Kota.
2. General Officer Commanding Unit 18 Infantry, Division
D.S.R. Through 56 A.P.O.
3. Union Of India Through Secretary, Defence Ministry,
Government Of India, New Delhi Through 18 Infantry
Division Signal Regiment A.R.E.N. 540, Nayapura, Kota.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nidhi Khandelwal, Adv. with
Ms. Mamta Vijay, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 11/03/2024
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellant-claimant (for short 'the claimant') against the judgment
and award dated 13.11.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Kota (Rajasthan) (for short 'the Tribunal') in Accident
Case No.198/1999, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.46,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per
[2024:RJ-JP:11934] (2 of 3) [CMA-271/2004]
annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. w.e.f. 27.3.99
in favour of the claimant.
Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal
had not decided the claim petition filed by the claimant in right
perspective. Due to accident, claimant suffered 6% permanent
disability and steel rod was inserted in his right leg, due to which
the claimant cannot run and the entire career and life of the
claimant has been put on stake but the Tribunal had granted very
meagre amount of Rs.20,000/- only towards medical expenses,
nutritional diet, transportation and Rs.26,000/- for mental agony,
pain and suffering. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal be
modified accordingly.
Learned counsel for the respondents-non-claimants (for
short 'the non-claimants') has opposed the arguments advanced
by learned counsel for the claimant and submits that the Tribunal
rightly calculated the compensation and also submits that the
Tribunal had awarded Rs.20,000/- in the head of medical
expenses, nutritional diet and transportation, whereas medical
bills were of Rs.14,000/- only and the Tribunal also rightly
awarded Rs.26,000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering.
So, present appeal be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the claimant as well as learned counsel for the non-
claimants and perused the impugned order.
While allowing the claim petition, the Tribunal had considered
the medical bills submitted by the claimant, which were of
Rs.14,000/- only but the Tribunal had granted Rs.20,000/- in the
head of medical expenses, nutritional diet and transportation. The
[2024:RJ-JP:11934] (3 of 3) [CMA-271/2004]
Tribunal has also awarded Rs.26,000/- in the head of mental
agony, pain and suffering. So, in my considered opinion, the
Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding Rs.46,000/- as
compensation to the claimant. So, present appeal being devoid of
merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed
accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /10
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
