Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwari Devi vs Ajay Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:35738) on 11 August, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:35738]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1323/2022
Bhanwari Devi W/o Ramu Ram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Bugaliya Bas, Kuchamancity, Tehsil Kuchamancity, Distt. Nagaur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ajay Singh S/o Anand Singh, R/o Plot No. 128, Rajendra
Nagar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur. (Driver)
2. Santosh Kanwar W/o Anand Singh, R/o Plot No. 128,
Rajendra Nagar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur. (Owner)
3. National Insurance Company Ltd., Shardulganj,
Panchsheel Circle, Bikaner, Raj. (Insurer)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaju Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. T.R.S. Sodha for the Insurance
Company.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
11/08/2025
1. The present civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the
appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 ('MV Act') assailing the judgment and award dated
03.03.2022 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal Parbatsar, district Nagaur ('learned Tribunal') in Claim
Case No. 61/2017(CIS NO. 61/2017), whereby the learned
Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants
and awarded compensation of Rs.4,12,726/-, in favour of
claimants along with interest @ 7% p.a. while fastening the
liability upon the respondents, jointly and severally.
[2025:RJ-JD:35738] (2 of 6) [CMA-1323/2022]
2. Brief facts of the case are that on behalf of the appellant,
Bhanwari Devi, a claim petition was filed under Sections 166/140
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Sections 10(2) and
10(3) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act, 1990, against
respondents including Ajay Singh on 17.04.2017. It was stated
before the court that on 16.12.2016, at around 11 a.m., the driver
of tempo vehicle number RJ-37-PA-0909, Asuram was traveling
from Kuchaman City to his village Barwala while following traffic
rules, suddenly, the driver of vehicle bearing number RJ-14-QC-
8671, coming from behind, driving at high speed and negligently,
caused a collision near Rupura bus stand by moving the tempo in
the wrong direction. As a result, Asuram and passengers in the
tempo--Gopalsingh Rupura, Bhanwaridevi Bugalia from Kuchaman
City, Dhulkidevi Barwala, Makhan Singh Barwala, Gopiram
Dalelpura, and Bhanwaridevi Dalelpura--suffered injuries. They
were taken by ambulance to the Hospital in Kuchaman City, where
due to severe injuries, Bhanwari Devi Bugalia was referred to
Jaipur for further treatment. The accident occurred due to rash,
negligent, and careless driving of Respondent No.1. At the time of
the accident, Respondent No.2 was the registered owner of the
vehicle, and Respondent No.1 was operating it with their
permission. The vehicle was insured under Respondent No.3.
Therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
full compensation to the petitioner, who is entitled to the same.
3. Since there is no dispute as to the facts of the case the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant has
restricted his submissions only to the quantum of the
compensation awarded by the learned tribunal while submitting
[2025:RJ-JD:35738] (3 of 6) [CMA-1323/2022]
that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding such meager
compensation, without properly considering the evidence on
record and applicable law. The learned counsel submits that the
learned Tribunal wrongly assessed the injured's income as
Rs.5,122/- per month by treating her as unskilled labor that too
for 26 working days in a month instead of 30 days, despite clear
evidence that she earned Rs.10,000/- per month through
agricultural work. He further submits that the assessment of
income is thus grossly undervalued and deserves modification.
The injured was engaged in both agricultural and household work
before the accident and is now unable to perform these duties as
before. The Learned tribunal considered permanent disability as
16%, whereas it should have been 32% in accordance with the
permanent disability certificate duly issued by Medical Board of
H.B.K. Hospital Kuchaman City, District Nagaur. He submits that
the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate this unchallenged
evidence and incorrectly calculated her permanent disability to the
extent of 16%. The compensation must be enhanced accordingly.
4. E-converso, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company opposes and submits that the award passed by the
learned Tribunal is just and warrants no interference by this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel representing the parties as well as
perused the material available on record.
6. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has awarded the
lump-sum amount of Rs.4,12,726/- as quantum of compensation
to the appellant/claimant. The learned Tribunal has erred in
assessing the injured's monthly income at Rs.5,122/- by treating
her as an unskilled laborer and calculating her wages based on 26
[2025:RJ-JD:35738] (4 of 6) [CMA-1323/2022]
working days per month. This assessment is not only contrary to
the evidence on record but also inconsistent with the Minimum
Wages Notification No.2000/Part/27607 dated 17.12.2015, which
prescribes the daily wage at Rs.197/-. This aspect has already
been dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court at
Bench at Jaipur in Rekha Devi & Ors. Vs. Hari Singh & Ors.:
SBCMA No.1512/2017. Thus, a proper calculation, taking into
account a full month of 30 days, would result in a monthly income
of Rs.5,910/- (Rs.197x30). Therefore, the computation done by
the learned Tribunal fails to assess the accurate monthly income,
thereby adversely affecting the quantum of compensation
awarded. Furthermore, the claimant was involved in both
agricultural and household duties before the accident and due to
the 32% permanent disability sustained she is no longer able to
perform these tasks with the same efficiency. The learned Tribunal
failed to consider this significant aspect while calculating loss of
future income, thereby undervaluing her true loss by providing
16% under the head of Permanent Disability and here in the
present case, when the permanent disability certificate has been
issued by the competent Medical Board assessing the disability
suffered by the claimant at 32% the disability cannot be reduced
to 16%. Thus, in view of judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Narendra Singh Vs. Sanjay & Ors.: SBCMA
No.1429/2018, decided on 18.08.2021, in the opinion of this
Court, the learned Tribunal has erred in considering the disability
to the extend of 16% only. Relevant para of order dated
18.08.2021 is reproduced as under:-
[2025:RJ-JD:35738] (5 of 6) [CMA-1323/2022]
"Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant had
sustained"the injuries on account of the accident which
occurred on 18.09.2016 in which he suffered fracture
of femur bone and the medical board assessed
permanent disability of the appellant to the extent of
24%. Perusal of the certificate (Exp.45) issued by the
Medical Board shows that the appellant had suffered
fracture on account of which he sustained permanent
disability to the extent of 24% and therefore, the
permanent disability of the appellant should have been
taken into consideration to the extent of 24% while
computing the award instead of 12%. Therefore, the
Tribunal has erred in computing the award while
considering the permanent disability of the appellant to
the extent of only 12%."
It is further noted that, in the present case, the claimant has
been assessed to have 32% permanent disability due to a fracture
in the right leg, as per the Permanent Disability Certificate. This
fact has already been admitted by the learned Tribunal, which
admitted permanent disability as 32% as assessed by the Medical
Board of H.B.K. Hospital, Kuchaman City, District Nagaur. It is
seen that the learned Tribunal disregarded the evidence on record,
including the Injury Report (Ex.14) and the Physical Disability
Certificate (Ex.16). Furthermore, the respondents have not
challenged or rebutted the said certificates; in the absence of any
such rebuttal, the learned Tribunal ought to have duly considered
the Physical Disability Certificate (Ex.16) when awarding
compensation. Consequently, the assessment of income and the
compensation awarded for loss of future earnings must be
enhanced to accurately reflect the claimant's actual earning
capacity and the impact of the injury on her livelihood.
7. Thus, in view of discussion in the above paragraphs the
compensation awardable to the appellants/claimants is as under:
Particulars Awarded by Amount
Tribunal
[2025:RJ-JD:35738] (6 of 6) [CMA-1323/2022]
Monthly Income of the Rs.5,120/- Rs.6,501/-
injured 197x30 + future
10% of 5910=591
Loss of Income due to (A) Rs.97,360/- (A)Rs.2,24,674/-
Permanent Disabled 32%=
Rs.6,501 x 32 / 100 x 12 x 9
(multiplier)
Medical Bills (B) (B)
Rs.3,00,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/-
Loss of Income of 3 months, (C) Rs.15,366/- (C) Rs.15,366/-
as he was hospitalized.
TOTAL Rs.5,40,040/-
AWARDED BY TRIBUNAL Rs.4,12,726/-
ENHANCED AMOUNT Rs.1,27,314/-
8. Thus, the instant appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant
is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the learned
tribunal is modified accordingly.
9. Therefore, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to get
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,27,314/- along with interest @ 7
% (same as awarded by the learned tribunal) from the filing of the
claim petition in the same manner as directed by the learned
tribunal shall be paid by respondents jointly and severally. The
amount of compensation, if any disbursed to the
appellants/claimants, shall be adjusted accordingly.
10. No order as to costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
256-Devesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
