[2025:RJ-JP:25208] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1508/2014 Sajan Singh S/o Shri Dahra Singh, R/o Livari, Police Station Sadar, Tehsil And District Alwar Raj. ----Claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Aashish Kapoor S/o Shri Krishan Narayan Kapoor, Director Firm Arol Refrigeration Industries Private Limited,24/107A Krishna Road, Kanpur(U.P.) R/o G.t. Road Makrand Nagar, Near Kannoj City Railway Station, Kannoj U.p. - Owner Of The Vehicle 2. Dharmesh S/o Shri Chunni Lal, R/o Shahpur Police Station Sadar, Alwar - Driver Of The Vehicle 3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Having Its Office At Plot No. 3, Scheme No. 29, Gurganva, Hariyana, Through Its Manager (Insurance Company) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ritesh Jain with Mr. Ram Deo Arya with Ms. Poonam Mishra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 08/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act of 1988") for enhancement of compensation assailing the award dated 22.10.2013 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar (hereinafter to be referred to as the "learned Tribunal") in claim petition No.327/2007, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant has been partly allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:25208] (2 of 6) [CMA-1508/2014] 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claim petition was filed by the claimants stating that on 27.07.2006, the claimant was going from Liwari to Alwar on his motorcycle when he reached near Hanuman Mandir, Kati Ghati another vehicle Car bearing registration No.U.P.-78-AZ-5750 driven by non-claimant/respondent No. 2- Dharmesh in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and hit the motorcycle of the claimant/appellant, due to which the claimant/appellant sustained grievous injuries, and his neck and left leg were fractured, thereafter, he was admitted in Solanki hospital and later on, he was referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi. Subsequently, the claimant had filed claim petition seeking just and proper compensation. 3. Notice of the claim petition was issued to non-claimant/respondent-Aashish No.1 (owner of the vehicle), who despite service of the notice, decided not to appear before the Tribunal, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him vide order dated 06.08.2008. 4. Notice of the claim petition was also issued to non-claimant/respondent No.2- Dharmesh (driver of the vehicle), but despite granting opportunity, non-claimant No.2 did not file any reply, therefore his right to file a reply was closed. 5. The non-claimant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed a detailed reply to the claim petition and submitted that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the claimant/appellant. They further argued that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving [2025:RJ-JP:25208] (3 of 6) [CMA-1508/2014] license. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant/appellant. 6. That on the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed three (3) issues. 7. In order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim, the claimant examined AW-1 Sajan Singh and produced documents Ex.1 to Ex.81. 8. In rebuttal, the respondents have examined NAW-1 Ashok Kumar and NAW-2 Pawan Kumar Agarwal, and also filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which was allowed. 9. After hearing arguments of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal, considered the age of the claimant/appellant to be 45 years; permanent disability of the injured was assessed as 20%; also the fact that the injured remained hospitalized for 40 days and looking to the medical bills, pain and suffering of the claimant/appellant awarded a sum of Rs.2,33,641/- along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 10. Being aggrieved of the of which, the claimant/appellant has preferred the present appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits, that looking to the fact that claimant/appellant suffered seven injuries (five simple and two grievous i.e. injury in the neck and his left leg were fractured), the amount so awarded under the impugned award is inadequate and may kindly be enhanced. 12. He further submits that the learned Tribunal seriously erred while awarding an inadequate compensation and has assessed the [2025:RJ-JP:25208] (4 of 6) [CMA-1508/2014] disability of the appellant to be only 20% only which is contrary to the Ex.79 (permanent disability certificate issued by medical board of Community Health Center, Mahwa, Dausa) produced before the learned Tribunal. He further contends, that the said exhibit reflects that the claimant/appellant suffered permanent disability of 36%. Therefore, amount awarded under the impugned award is required to be modified to some extent. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company opposed the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered the facts and evidence on record in the correct perspective, while arriving to a just conclusion, and the amount so awarded is just and proper, and hence, does not call for any interference or enhancement by this Court. 14. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. It is evident from the records of the case that the age of injured is 45 years; income of the injured assessed by the learned Tribunal at the time of accident was Rs.4,000/- per month; the permanent disability sustained by the deceased is 36%, as is evident from permanent disability certificate issued by medical board of Community Health Center, Mahwa, Dausa (Ex.79), it is also revealed from the record that the injured remained hospitalized for 40 days. 16. It is also evident from the findings of the learned Tribunal, that the functional disability of the claimant/appellant was assessed at 20% as against 36% indicated in the permanent [2025:RJ-JP:25208] (5 of 6) [CMA-1508/2014] disability certificate (Ex.79), but looking to the nature of work the claimant/appellant was engaged in, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant/appellant is entitled to seek enhancement while considering the functional disability of the injured to be 30%. 17. While considering the amount awarded under the head of hospitalization for 40 days, it is evident that only Rs.20,000/- has been awarded; and for pain, suffering and mental agony to the claimant/appellant, a meager sum of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded. 18. Looking to the injuries sustained by the injured, this Court is of the opinion that the amount awarded under these two heads are also required to be enhanced. This Court is also conscious about the facts that the future prospects of the injured have been seriously affected due to the accident, which has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. 19. After taking an overall consideration of the above facts, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under the impugned award is required to be extended to some extent and same is enhanced as per the table made hereinunder:- Loss of income Rs.4,000/- x12x14x30%=2,01,600/- Future prospects @25% (+) Rs.50,400/- Simple Injuries(5) Rs.5,000/- Grievous Injuries(2) Rs.10,000/- Hospitalisation (40 days) Rs.24,000/- Medical Bills Rs.24,241/- Physical Pain & Mental Agony Rs.65,000/- Food and Nutrition (+) Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.3,85,241/- [2025:RJ-JP:25208] (6 of 6) [CMA-1508/2014] Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.2,33,641/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.1,51,600/- 20. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.3,85,241/- from the original amount of Rs.2,33,641/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.1,51,600/- before the learned concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant is also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount Rs.1,51,600/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the realization of the said amount. 21. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced as per the terms indicated above. 22. It is needless to say that this Court has not interfered with the findings recorded under issue No.3, whereby the Insurance Company has been directed to pay the compensation to the claimant and thereafter has been granted the right to recover the said compensation from the owner of the vehicle while invoking the principle of pay and recover. 23. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /158-S