[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Laxmi Chand vs Hanif Khan And Ors (2026:Rj-Jd:9148) on 19 February, 2026

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:9148]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1062/2001

Laxmi Chand S/o. Shiv Pratap, by caste Soni, R/o. Jamsar,
District Bikaner.
                                                            ----Appellant-Claimant
                                       Versus
1.    Hanif    Khan      S/o.     Jamal        Khan,       B/c      Musalman,   R/o.
Panchpadara, Police Station Phalsund, District Jaisalmer.
2. Shyamlal S/o. Chhagna Ram, B/c Suthar, R/o. Bordawas Post
Birani Via Banad, District Jodhpur.
3. Babulal S/o. Dhanna Ram B/c. Mali, R/o. Balesar Satta Tehsil
Shergarh, District Jodhpur.
4. National Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Divisional
Office, Jodhpur.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Aman Bishnoi Bola.
For Respondent(s)            :     None



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

19/02/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Since the present appeal is pending consideration before this

Court for last more than 25 years and despite service of notice,

nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents, therefore, the

same is being decided after hearing the learned counsel for the

appellant-claimant only.

3. Briefly noted the facts in the present appeal are that the

appellant- Laxmi Chand was the driver of the Bus bearing

registration No. RRF 7677, which met with an accident on

01.12.1996 with a Truck bearing registration No. RJ19 G-2430 at

Bikaner to Nachna Road. On account of the injuries suffered by

(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 03:00:34 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9148] (2 of 6) [CMA-1062/2001]

the appellant-claimant, he preferred a claim petition MAC Case No.

183/1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (For

short 'learned Tribunal'). The learned Tribunal, after framing the

issues, decided the claim petition of the appellant vide order dated

10.08.2001 awarding a sum of Rs.1,25,565/- in total and reduced

the same by 50% on account of the contributory negligence of the

appellant and, therefore, the amount awarded to the appellant in

the present case was only Rs.62,782/-. Aggrieved of the same,

the appellant had preferred the present appeal before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the

findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue Nos. 1 & 3 are

incorrect and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an

error while deducting 50% amount of compensation on account of

contributory negligence. He further submits that the bus was

being driven by the appellant on its correct side and the speed of

the bus was also 10 to 15 kilometers per hour, however, the truck

was being driven by the driver- Hanif Khan rashly and negligently.

He also submits that in the accident, the bus skid back almost 30

feet, which clearly shows that the truck was being driven at high

speed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that

despite the appellant-claimant appeared in the witness box to

prove the factum that the truck was being driven rashly and

negligently, however, the driver of the truck did not appear to

counter the statement made by the appellant-claimant, therefore,

it can safely be presumed that the accident occurred on account of

the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck -Hanif

Khan. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding

(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 03:00:34 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9148] (3 of 6) [CMA-1062/2001]

the appellant 50% negligent in the accident, is erroneous. He,

therefore, prays that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal

on Issue Nos. 1 & 3 may be quashed and set-aside and the driver

of the truck may be held entirely responsible for the accident in

the present case.

6. Secondly, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits

that in the accident, the driver of the bus suffered 35% permanent

disability and on account of the disability, he is unable to perform

the duty of the driver completely as he is unable to change the

tire of the vehicle and he could not climb-up the bus or truck,

therefore, it can be presumed that the appellant has suffered

100% disability. Thirdly, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant

submits that the award in the present case is required to be re-

computed in the light of Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority

Guidelines, 2024 (For short 'RALSA Guidelines, 2024).

7. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents to

counter the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

appellant-claimant.

8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the relevant record of the case.

9. To appreciate the first contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant-claimant, it is necessary to see Exhibit-3, which is

the site map of the accident. A close look of the Exhibit-3 shows

that the vehicle coming from both the sides were not being driven

on their correct side and the accident took place in the centre of

the road. In the considered opinion of this Court, since the

accident had taken place in the centre of the road, therefore, the

(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 03:00:34 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9148] (4 of 6) [CMA-1062/2001]

finding of the fact arrived at by the learned Tribunal after due

appreciation of the evidence appears to be just and proper.

10. Merely because the appellant's bus was skidding up to 30

feet, cannot be a ground to assume the fact that the truck was

being driven negligently. Since the impact of the accident was at

the centre of the road, therefore, the side of the accident is

required to be seen where both the vehicles met and since both

the accidental side is the centre of the road, therefore, this Court

is of the view that it can be presumed that both the drivers were

negligent in driving their vehicle.

11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the finding of fact

recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue Nos.1 and 3 does not

suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, the argument of the

learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, is rejected and it is

held that the appellant-claimant was also negligent in driving the

vehicle resulting into accident, which occurred on 01.12.1996.

12. In so far as the second contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant-claimant that the permanent disability assessed by

the learned Tribunal to the extent of 35% is incorrect as he will

face problem in changing the stepney of the vehicle and,

therefore, the same ought to have been assessed 100% is

concerned, the contention is noted to be rejected only on the

ground that as per the statement of AW-3 Dr. Rajneesh Sharma, it

has come on record that the appellant will be able to drive the

vehicle, however, he will face some difficulty in changing the

stepney. Merely, because the appellant will have some difficulty, it

cannot be assumed and presumed that he will not be able to

(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 03:00:34 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9148] (5 of 6) [CMA-1062/2001]

change the stepney. Therefore, I am not inclined to increase the

disability of the appellant-claimant from 35% to 100%.

13. As far as the third contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant-claimant is concerned, the same merits acceptance as in

the accident, the appellant-claimant has suffered two fractures,

one of femur bones and another fracture of humerus of the right

hand besides other simple injuries, therefore, the compensation of

the award in the present case is required to be re-computed as

per the RALSA guidelines, 2024, which is as under:-

1. Age of the injured 39 Years

2. Permanent Disability 35% Calculation :-

Rs.35,000/- + Rs.5,500/- for each % of disability X 35= Total = Rs.35,000/- + 1,92,500=2,27,500/- Rs.2,27,500/-

3. Injuries and there amount payable :-

Five Simple Injuries :-

      Rs.3500x5=17,500/-                                           Rs.17,500/-
4.    Hospitalization amount payable :-
      Rs.600/- per day x 45 days=27,000/-                          Rs.27,000/-
5.    Medical Bills                                                Rs.13,465/-
6.    Transportation                                               Rs.3,600/-
7.    Loss of Income
      45 Days x Rs.700/- per day=31,500/-                          Rs.31,500/-