Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raju Nath vs Nafees Ahamad And Anr. ... on 10 March, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:13299]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2145/2016
Raju Nath S/o Shivnath, aged about 29 years, R/o Village
Nandbai, Tehsil Begun, District Chittorgarh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Nafees Ahamad S/o Nasiruddin Khan, R/o 627, Aasamo Ki
Gali, Ward No.11, Ajmer, District Ajmer.
2. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., through its branch
Manager, Branch office, Chittorgarh.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Pitaliya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Johari, Sr. Adv. assisted
by Mr. Lalit Parihar
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
10/03/2025
1. The instant misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act of 1988'), seeking enhancement, has
been preferred by the appellant-claimant against the Judgment
and Award dated 19.05.2016 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh ('the learned Tribunal') in
MAC Case No.629/2009 (852/2011), whereby the learned Tribunal
partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant
under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 and awarded Rs.7365/-
along with interest @9% p.a. while fastening the liability upon the
respondents Nos.1 and 2, jointly and severally.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.07.2006 the appellant-
claimant was travelling in a truck bearing registration No.RJ-27-G-
[2025:RJ-JD:13299] (2 of 5) [CMA-2145/2016]
0238 ('the truck'), when a trailer bearing registration No.HR-38-C-
8735, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver,
came from the opposite direction and dashed into the truck. As a
result of the accident the appellant-claimant sustained injuries.
Subsequently, a claim petition was filed by the appellant-claimant
under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned tribunal
seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him. The
respondent No.2-insurance company filed its reply to the claim
petition while denying the averments made therein. The
respondent No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte.
2.1. On basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned tribunal
framed total four issues. The appellant-claimant got himself
examined as witness (AW1) and produced documentary evidence
(Ex.1 to Ex.20). On the other hand the respondents failed to lead
any evidence.
2.2. After hearing the parties and on basis of material available
on record the learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petition
filed by the appellant-claimant vide judgment and award dated
19.05.2016 ('impugned award') and awarded compensation to the
tune of Rs.7365/- along with interest @9% per annum from the
date of filing the claim petition while fastening the liability on the
respondents, jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation awarded by the learned tribunal, the appellant-
claimant has preferred the instant misc. appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Tribunal has erred in discarding the permanent disability certificate
(Exhibit-15) which was duly issued by the Medical Board of
[2025:RJ-JD:13299] (3 of 5) [CMA-2145/2016]
Government Hospital. He places reliance upon the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Chand
Sharma v. Rambabu Saini, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 276 (para
9).
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant also submits that
the learned tribunal has also erred in considering only 3 simple
injuries while granting the compensation whereas as per injury
report (Exhibit-5) the appellant-claimant has sustained 5 simple
injuries.
5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent
refutes the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant-claimant and submits that the learned tribunal has
awarded just compensation.
6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
bar and have gone through the material available on record.
7. Taking into consideration the injury report dated 16.07.2006
(Annexure-5), it is evident that the appellant-claimant has
suffered five injuries and not three injuries on his body. This Court
also finds that the permanent disability certificate dated
20.09.2013 (Exhibit-15) has duly been issued by the Medical
Board of the Government Hospital wherein permanent disability
suffered by the appellant-claimant has been assessed as 15%.
8. Thus, taking into consideration the judgment passed by
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Chand Sharma
(supra), this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has gravely
erred in discarding the disability certificate (Ex.15) duly issued by
[2025:RJ-JD:13299] (4 of 5) [CMA-2145/2016]
a Medical Board of a Government Hospital. The relevant paragraph
of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:
"9. The Tribunal questioned the competence of the
Medical Board to assess the permanent disability of the
claimant-appellant, terming the certificate of the Medical
Board as not completely reliable. If the Tribunal had
reason to doubt the medical certificate, the option
available before it was to have the disability re-assessed
but it could not have gone into the details of the
determination of disability. Since that course of action
has not been adopted, the opinion of the Medical Board,
being an opinion of the experts is to be treated as such.
That apart, the comatose state of the claimant-appellant
is not in dispute."
9. This court finds that the appellant-claimant was young aged
22 years old, working as a labourer at the time of the accident
therefore this court deems it appropriate to assess the income of
the appellant-claimant as Rs.2,600/- per month while taking into
consideration the minimum wages prevalent at that time. Further,
this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.3,500/- for simple
injury.
10. Furthermore, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd & Anr :
"Civil Appeal No.8510 of 2022 decided on 16.11.2022", this
Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- to the appellant
under the head of Pain and Sufferings.
11. Thus, the compensation awardable to the appellant-claimant
is as under:
Particulars Amount Amount
awarded by awarded and
the Tribunal enhanced by
this Court
[2025:RJ-JD:13299] (5 of 5) [CMA-2145/2016]
Income nil Rs.3,000/- (per
month)
Simple injuries (3500x5) [A] Rs.7,000/- Rs.17,500/-
Amount towards Permanent nil Rs.97,200/-
Disability:- [(Permanent disability%)
x (Annual Income) x (Multiplier)]
(15%) x (3000 x 12) x (18)= /-
[D]
Medical bills [E] Rs.365/- Rs.365/-
Pain and Suffering [F] nil Rs.30,000/-
TOTAL Rs.7,365/- Rs.1,48,065/-
[A+B+C+D+E+F] [G] [H]
Enhanced Amount: [H] - [G] Rs.1,40,700/-
12. Accordingly, the instant misc. appeal preferred by the
appellant-claimant is partly allowed.
13. Therefore, the appellant-claimant is held entitled to get
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,40,700/- along with interest @9%
(same as awarded by the learned tribunal) from the date of filing
of the claim petition in the same manner as directed by the
learned tribunal.
14. The amount of compensation, if any deposited or disbursed
to the appellants/claimants, shall be adjusted accordingly.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
66-amit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
