Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satyanarayan vs M/S Banna Lal Jat Construction Co. Pvt ... on 23 September, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:39582]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1142/2023
Satyanarayan S/o Shri Ramswaroop, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Village Manakpura, Tehsil Kotadi, District Bhilwara.
----Appellant
Versus
1. M/s Banna Lal Jat Construction Co. Pvt Ltd., Bus Stand
Jahajpur, Through Owner Banna Lal Jat S/o Shri Harji
Ram Jat, Resident Of Gopalpura, Ps Pander, Tehsil
Jahajpur, District Bhilwara. (Owner Of Vehicle Dumper No.
Rj 06 Gb 1376)
2. Shri Brij Mohan S/o Shri Khem Raj Meena, R/o Paancha
Ka Baada, Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara. (Driver Of
Vehicle Dumper No. Rj 06 Gb 1376)
3. National Insurnace Company Limited, Through Regional
Manager National Insurance Company Limited Branch
Office Bhilwara. (Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. Rj 06
Gb 1376)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. T.R.S. Sodha
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
23/09/2024
1. The instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant
claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ['the
Act of 1988'] challenging the validity of the judgment/award dated
04.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge, MACT No.1, Bhilwara
(Raj.) In MAC Petition No.504/2018 (CIS No.506/2018) whereby
the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of the
appellant/claimant and respondents were held liable to pay the
said amount of compensation.
[2024:RJ-JD:39582] (2 of 5) [CMA-1142/2023]
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.11.2017 at about 8 pm,
Satyanarayan, Rajesh Rakesh, Bheru Lal, Khushi Ram and
Omprakash were riding on the motorcycle from Village Bhaasu to
Todarai Singh. A Dumper bearing Registration No.RJ-06-GB-1376,
being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from Todarai
Singh, hit them and as a result whereof, appellant sustained
grievous injuries as well as permanent disability. FIR of the said
incident was registered at the Police Station Todaraisingh District
Tonk and a challan was filed against respondent No.2 Driver. The
appellant/claimant prayed for compensation under various heads.
3. Respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle, filed reply
to the claim petition and denied all the averments made in the
claim petition while stating therein that the said accident occurred
due to the negligence on part of the appellant. It was further
contended that at the time of the accident, driver of the vehicle
was having valid and effective driving licence and also, there was
no breach of policy of insurance company on part of the driver.
4. On the contrary, respondent No.3 also filed a separate reply
while denying the averments made in the claim petition and
further stating that driver of the offending vehicle was not having
valid and effective licence at the time of accident. It was also
contended that the claimant conspired with the police and falsely
involved the vehicle in question so as to claim the amount of
compensation.
5. As per the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed some issues.
In support of claim petition, oral as well as documentary
evidences were produced by the appellant/claimant to prove the
case. The respondents on the contrary, did not lead any evidence.
[2024:RJ-JD:39582] (3 of 5) [CMA-1142/2023]
6. After trial and hearing both the parties, learned Tribunal
partly allowed the claim petition and awarded quantum of
compensation in favour of the claimant. Aggrieved of awarding
meager amount, the appellant/claimant has preferred the instant
misc. appeal.
7. Learned counsel representing the appellant/claimant submits
that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed permanent
disability of the appellant/claimant because, as per Exhibit-16
issued by the Medical Board, it is opined that the claimant had
sustained 20% Permanent Disability but the learned Tribunal failed
to take this aspect into consideration and awarded compensation
while considering Permanent Disability as 7%. He further submits
that the learned Tribunal also erred in not awarding quantum of
compensation towards future prospects.
8. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-
Insurance Company opposes the submissions advanced by the
appellant's counsel and prays for rejection of the instant misc.
appeal.
9. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at Bar
by counsel for the parties and have gone through the material
available on record.
10. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has erred in
considering the Permanent Disability as 7% whereas the Medical
Board assessed the Permanent Disability of the claimant as 20%.
It is also seen that the learned Tribunal has also not awarded any
amount under the head 'Future Prospects'. Thus, in light of law
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Pappu Deo
Yadav v. Naresh Kumar reported in AIR 2020 SC 4424, in the
[2024:RJ-JD:39582] (4 of 5) [CMA-1142/2023]
case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. reported in 2017 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, the
appellant/claimant is held entitled to get enhancement towards
the heads; Permanent Disability and Future Prospects.
11. Since there is no dispute in the factual matrix of the case,
both the counsel were directed to jointly submit the calculation,
which is as under:-
S.No. Particulars Amount
1 Compensation under the head Rs.2,43,734/-
'Loss of Income' (Rs.5,642/- x 12 x 18 (multiplier) x 20%
(permanent disability)
2 Future Prospects Rs.97,493/-
(Rs.2,43,734/- x 40%)
3 [A] TOTAL Rs.3,41,227/-
(Rs.2,43,734/- + Rs.97,493/-)
4 [B] Awarded by Tribunal Rs.1,48,130/-
5 GRAND TOTAL [A] - [B] Rs.1,93,097/-
(Difference)
12. Accordingly, this misc. appeal preferred by the
appellant/claimant is partly allowed. The judgment/award dated
04.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge, MACT No.1, Bhilwara
(Raj.) In MAC Petition No.504/2018 (CIS No.506/2018), is
enhanced and modified accordingly. The appellant/claimant is
thus, held entitled to get enhanced compensation of
Rs.1,93,097/- in the terms stated above. The enhanced amount
shall carry interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal from
09.11.2021 inasmuch as the learned Tribunal has categorically
observed in the judgment and award dated 04.02.2023, that the
service of notice was complete on 09.11.2021 and that the said
[2024:RJ-JD:39582] (5 of 5) [CMA-1142/2023]
delay in service of notice was caused by the appellant/claimant
himself.
13. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the respondents
before the learned Tribunal and the same shall be disbursed in
favour of the claimant/appellant within a period of 'two months'
from today failing which, the interest shall stand enhanced @
7.5% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization.
No order as to costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
138-/Devesh Thanvi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
