Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jairam vs National Insurance Company Ltd. ... on 15 October, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:45255]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 189/2023
Jairam S/o Sh. Ladu Lal Bairwa, Aged About 49 Years, Resident
Of Lasadiya, Ps Pander, Tehsil Shahpura, District Bhilwara. (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager,
National Ins. Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Bhilwara. (Raj.)
(Insurer)
2. Shambhu Lal S/o Sh. Narayan Lal Gurjar, Resident Of
Jodhdas Suwana, P.S. Pur, District Bhilwara. (Raj.)
(Owner)
3. Mahaveer S/o Sh. Banshi Lal Kumawat, R/o Srinagar
Sankhliya, P.S. and Tehsil Phuliya Kalan, District Bhilwara.
(Raj.) (Driver)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Pitaliya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Vyas
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
15/10/2025
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the
instant appeal is being heard and disposed of finally at this stage
itself.
The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-
claimant against the judgment and award dated 11.10.2022
passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional
District Judge), Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Motor Accident
Claim Case No.129/2018, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the
claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant and awarded a sum
of Rs.53,709/- jointly and severally as compensation with an
(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 04:50:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 10:02:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45255] (2 of 4) [CMA-189/2023]
interest @ 6% p.a. on account of injuries sustained by Jairam in
the accident which occurred on 09.02.2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the
Tribunal fell in error while deciding the issue No.4 and reducing
the permanent disability sustained by the appellant to the extent
of 5% from 10%. Learned counsel submits that on account of
fracture of frontal bone (head injury) and other bones, the Medical
Board assessed permanent disability of the appellant to the extent
of 10%, however, learned Tribunal while computing the award in
the present case reduced the same to the extent of 5%. It is also
contended that the Tribunal has also committed an error in not
awarding a suitable amount of compensation to the appellant
towards loss of future prospects in view of the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav
vs. Naresh Kumar andors. AIR 2020 SC 4424 and Sanjay
Verma vs. HaryanaRoadways 2014 ACJ 692. It is also
contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing
the income of the appellant @ Rs.5,538/- p.m. and low
compensation has been awarded for pain & suffering. He,
therefore, prays that the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal may kindly be suitably modified by enhancing the amount
of compensation.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance
Company submits that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
permanent disability of the appellant on the basis of the evidence
produced before it, therefore, the amount awarded in the present
case is a just compensation. He, therefore, prays that no
(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 04:50:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 10:02:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45255] (3 of 4) [CMA-189/2023]
interference is warranted in the judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal.
I have considered the submissions made at the bar, gone
through the judgment dated 11.10.2022 passed by the Tribunal as
also perused relevant record of the case.
Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant had sustained
the injuries on account of the accident which occurred on
09.02.2018 in which he suffered fracture of frontal bone and other
bones and the medical board assessed permanent disability of the
appellant to the extent of 10%. Perusal of the certificate (Exp.54)
issued by the Medical Board shows that the appellant had suffered
fracture on account of which he sustained permanent disability to
the extent of 10% and therefore, the permanent disability of the
appellant should have been taken into consideration to the extent
of 10% while computing the award instead of 5%. Therefore, the
Tribunal has erred in computing the award while considering the
permanent disability of the appellant to the extent of only 5%.
So far as assessment of the income is concerned, on the
date of accident the minimum wages for unskilled labourer was
Rs.213/- per day, hence by taking 30 days, the monthly income
would come to Rs.6,390/-.
The Tribunal has also committed error in not awarding a
reasonable amount of compensation towards the loss of future
prospects on account of the permanent disability sustained by the
appellant, therefore, the award is also liable to be recomputed in
the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pappu Deo Yadav (supra). The calculation of award in the
present case will be as under:-
(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 04:50:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 10:02:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45255] (4 of 4) [CMA-189/2023]
Annual Income considered by the Tribunal - Rs.76,680/-
76,680 x 10/100 x 11= Rs.84,348/-
+ 10% future prospect= Rs.8,434/-
Loss of income = Rs.92,782/-
Pain & Suffering = Rs.40,000/-
Loss of income during treatment = Rs.19,170/-
Medical Bill= Rs.6,359/-
Other expenses= Rs.5,800/-
Total: = Rs.1,64,111/-
Subtract awarded amount = Rs.53,709/-
------------------
Rs.1,10,402/-
==========
In view of the discussion made above, the appeal is partly
allowed. The respondent insurance company is directed to pay the
enhanced amount of Rs.1,10,402/- to the appellant-claimant. The
enhanced amount shall carry an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date
of filing of the application till the same is paid.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
136-Rashi/-
(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 04:50:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
