Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madanlal vs Chhaganlal And Anr. ... on 6 March, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:12797]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1678/2015
Madanlal S/o Dhannaram, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of
Tehsil Pachpadara, District Barmer.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Chhaganlal S/o Omaram, Resident Of Magji Ki Dhani, Ward
No. 3, Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Khed Road,
Balotara, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1663/2015
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Khed Road, Balotra, Tehsil -
Pachpadara, District Barmer through Deputy Manager, United
India Insurance Company Ltd, Ist Floor, 74-A, Bhati N-Plaza, Main
Pal Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Madanlal S/o Dhannaram, R/o Jagasa, Tehsil Pachpadara,
District Barmer.
2. Chhaganlal S/o Omaram, R/o Magji Ki Dhani, Ward No.3,
Balotra, Tehsil - Pachpadara, District Barmer.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Panwar.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Subhankar Johari.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
06/03/2025
1. The present appeals arise out of judgment and award dated
27.06.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in
Mac Case No.857/2014 (71/12) Madanlal vs. Chhaganlal, whereby,
learned Tribunal has awarded as sum of Rs.74,755/- to the
[2025:RJ-JD:12797] (2 of 5) [CMA-1678/2015]
claimants and held the owner and the Insurance Company jointly
and severally liable to pay the compensation.
2. By way of filing S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1678/2015, the
claimant is seeking enhancement of the award passed by the
Tribunal and by filing S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1663/2015, the
Insurance Company is seeking quashing and setting aside of the
award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, it is deemed justifiable
to decide both appeals by a common order.
3. Prefatory facts of the case are that the claimant Madanlal
filed his claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 26,25,000/- for the injuries
sustained in the accident. According to the claimant, on
02.05.2012, at around 5:30-6:00 PM, he was riding motorcycle
No. RJ-04-2M-2138, owned by respondent - Chhaganlal, and
reached the outskirts of Tilwara. At that moment, another
motorcycle No. RJ-04-SD-0513, coming from Balotra at high
speed and being driven negligently, collided with Madanlal's
motorcycle, resulting in an accident. An FIR was lodged by
Khemaram at Police Station Pachpadra, and the police prepared a
site map and spot inspection report. The claimant Madanlal
sustained injuries, and the entire fault for the accident was
attributed to the rider of motorcycle No. RJ-04-SD-0513. The
claimant also stated that motorcycle No. RJ-04-2M-2138 was
insured with the insurance company.
4. In response, the insurance company submitted its reply,
arguing that the accident occurred between two motorcycles, RJ-
04-2M-2138 and RJ-04-SD-0513. It was contended that the major
[2025:RJ-JD:12797] (3 of 5) [CMA-1678/2015]
fault lay with the rider of motorcycle No.RJ-04-SD-0513, i.e.,
Malaram. The insurance company further claimed that since
Madanlal did not accept any fault on his part and attributed the
accident solely to the other motorcycle, Insurer could not be held
liable. Additionally, the Insurance Company argued that the owner
and insurer of motorcycle No. RJ-04-SD-0513 were necessary
parties, but they were not impleaded in the claim petition. On
these grounds, the insurance company prayed for the dismissal of
the claim petition.
5. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal has framed as many
as three issues in the claim petition and allowed the claim petition
filed by the claimants and awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.74,755/-
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.74,755/- as
compensation to the appellant/claimants. He submits that the
application has been filed under section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and in light of the provisions, the claimants
have already been awarded the compensation on the higher side,
as the claimants have suffered three injuries one greivious in
nature and two non-greivious injuries, the amount as mentioned
in the schedule is Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively and
under the medical expenses, the amount mentioned is
Rs.15,000/-.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to
refute that the compensation has already been awarded in excess
to the schedule appended to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988.
[2025:RJ-JD:12797] (4 of 5) [CMA-1678/2015]
8. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and
perused the material available on record, it is evident that the
claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, which provides for a structured formula-based
compensation. The learned Tribunal, while deciding the claim
petition, has awarded a sum of Rs. 74,755/- to the claimant,
taking into account the nature of injuries suffered, medical
expenses incurred, and other relevant factors. It has also been
noted that the amount awarded is in excess of the compensation
stipulated under the structured formula prescribed in the Schedule
appended to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. The learned
counsel for the appellant-claimant has not been able to refute the
fact that the awarded compensation is beyond the prescribed
limits under the statutory provisions. Additionally, the learned
counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the liability
should not have been fastened upon the insurer, as the accident
involved two motorcycles and the claimant himself attributed the
entire fault to the rider of the other vehicle, which was neither
impleaded as a necessary party nor insured by the present
Insurance Company. However, the Tribunal, after due
consideration of the evidence, held the owner and insurer of the
vehicle in question jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and taking into account
that the claim petition was adjudicated under Section 163-A of the
Act of 1988, where fault-based liability is not a consideration, this
Court finds no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned
judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal.
[2025:RJ-JD:12797] (5 of 5) [CMA-1678/2015]
Consequently, both the appeals, i.e., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.
1678/2015, filed by the claimants seeking enhancement, and S.B.
Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1663/2015, filed by the Insurance Company
seeking quashing of the award, are bereft of merit and are
accordingly dismissed. The award dated 27.06.2015 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MAC Case No. 857/2014
(71/12) is upheld. No order as to costs.
10. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
40-pradeep/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
