Rajasthan High Court
Siyaram Son Of Madan Lal vs Ramotar Jat Son Of Sugan Singh on 7 May, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:21129]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3226/2022
Siyaram Son Of Madan Lal, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of
Chimma Ki Dhani, Tan Narayanpur At Present Virat Nagar,
District Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ramotar Jat Son Of Sugan Singh, Resident Of Doli, Tehsil
And Thana Ramgarh, District Alwar (Driver And Owner
Truck No. Rj-05-Ga-4746).
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Having Its
Regional Office At Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur
Through Its Regional Manager(Insurer Truck No. Rj-05-
Ga-4746, Valid From 01-07-2013 To 30-06-2013).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur
For Respondent(s) : None
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 07/05/2024
The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimant-appellant (for short
'the claimant') dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated
27.07.2022 passed by the Additional District and Session Judge
No. 1, Shahpura, Jaipur and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Shahpura, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case
No.10/2014,(NCV No.1301/2014) whereby the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.47,278/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing the claim petition as compensation
in favour of the claimant.
[2024:RJ-JP:21129] (2 of 3) [CMA-3226/2022]
Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal
had considered the income of the claimant as Rs. 47,563/- per
month but the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss
of income. Learned counsel for the claimant further submits that
the Tribunal has awarded very meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/-
towards transportation charges and also awarded amount of Rs.
10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Learned counsel for the
claimant further submits that the claimant has sustained 24.63%
permanent disability but the Tribunal has not awarded any amount
towards the permanent disability. Learned counsel for the claimant
further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount
towards attendant, food and nutritional diet charges. So,
judgment and award of the Tribunal may be modified.
Despite service of notice, none has put in appearance on
behalf of respondent.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the claimants and perused the impugned judgment
and award.
It is admitted position that the claimant was a Government
Teacher. So, due to disability he did not suffer any loss of income.
So, in my considered opinion the Tribunal has rightly disallowed
the amount towards loss of income. But the Tribunal has not
awarded very meagre amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and
suffering. In my considered opinion, taking into consideration
24.63% permanent disbaility the amount towards pain and
suffering is required to be enhanced upto Rs. 20,000/-. The
Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendant charges
whereas it should be Rs.3,000/- and the Tribunal has not awarded
[2024:RJ-JP:21129] (3 of 3) [CMA-3226/2022]
any amount towards food and nutritional diet whereas it should be
Rs. 3,000/-. So, award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as
under:-
For pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/-
Medical Bills(+) Rs. 32,278/-
Transportation Charges(+) Rs. 5,000/-
For food and nutritional diet(+) Rs. 3,000/-
For attendant charges Rs.3,000/-
Total
Rs. 63,278/-
Awarded amount
Rs. 47,278/-
Enhanced Amount
Rs.63,278 -Rs.47,278 =
Rs. 16,000/-
In view of the above, the claimant is entitled to get a further
sum of Rs.16,000/- as compensation. Assurance Company is
directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.16,000 /-(Rs.63,278-
Rs.47,278) with the Tribunal within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On deposition of
the said amount, the claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the
same. The enhanced amount shall carry 6% interest from the
date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made.
Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain
unchanged.
Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Tahir/285
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
