[2025:RJ-JP:23177] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 690/2012 Prabhu Singh S/o Sri Ram Singh, Aged 48 years, R/o Subedar Ka Badiya Malpura, Tehsil Beawar, Distt. Ajmer ----Claimant-Appellant Versus 1. Kailesh Chand S/o Shri Vainiram, R/o Raigaron Ka Mohalla, Rajnagar, Rajsamand (Raj.) (Driver of the Truck No.RJ-30G- 0844). 2. Mohammad Jafar S/o Nijamuddin, R/o Kishor Nagar, Rajnagar, Distt. Rajsamand (Raj.) (Owner of the Truck No.RJ-30G-0844). 3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Gori Kunj, Rajnagar Road, Kankroli through Branch Manager having its Regional Office at Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Owner of the Truck No.RJ-30G-0844) ----Non-Claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yashowardhan Agarwal for Mr. J.P. Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.L. Verma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment 26/05/2025 1. The instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant Prabhu Singh dissatisfying from award dated 04.11.2011 in claim case No.367/2011 (72/2008) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Additional District Judge (Fast Track)] No.2, Beawar, District Ajmer, (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’) whereby an award of ₹85000/- is passed in favour of the appellant-claimant. [2025:RJ-JP:23177] (2 of 6) [CMA-690/2012] 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant while relying upon judgment in case of Ankur Kapoor Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. : 2017 4 ACC 673 has submitted that while considering the assessment of income, the Tribunal has adopted a narrow approach and determined income of appellant- claimant quite less than minimum wages which was ₹73/- per day. He also submitted that if after proper calculation, the income was determined in correct manner and multiplier of 14 was adopted on basis of age group, then the appellant would have got sufficient compensation. He also submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the heads of pain and sufferings, permanent disability and loss of future earning. He also referred the evidence on record and submitted that the appellant was able to show that he has suffered six injures and out of six, two were grievous in nature. Learned counsel has further submitted that the determination of compensation was on lower side and the appellant-claimant is entitled for enhancement in compensation. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and he placed reliance upon judgment in case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. : 2011 (1) T.A.C. 785 (S.C.) and submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down principle of assessment of loss of future earning in view of extent of permanent disability. He submitted that injuries may not result in permanent disability and the claimant has failed to show quantum of loss of income. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error while determining the compensation. He also submitted that this claimant has got [2025:RJ-JP:23177] (3 of 6) [CMA-690/2012] admitted for two days in hospital and in such eventuality, the compensation is more than sufficient. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Also considered the judgments as referred by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. On basis of accident dated 30.11.2006, a claim petition under Section 166/140 of MV Act was filed wherein after recording evidence of claimant, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹85000/- with interest. 6. In case of Ankur Kapoor Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), it was held that as per judgment in case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (supra) in event of permanent disability, the compensation is usually awarded under following heads:- “A. Pecuniary damages (Special Damages): (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure; (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. B. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries; (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage); (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity)” [2025:RJ-JP:23177] (4 of 6) [CMA-690/2012] 7. After considering 50% permanent disability to right arm of claimant, a compensation of ₹10,000,00/- was awarded. 8. In case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down following principle for assessment of permanent disability and they are as under:- “(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.” 9. Here in this case, the claimant has deposed that he remained in hospital for 10-11 days and, thereafter, in another hospital for 2-3 days. He also claimed that his treatment was continued for 3 years. The claimant has exhibited discharge ticket as Ex.11 and Ex.12 and prescription & bills from Ex.14 to Ex.17 and permanent [2025:RJ-JP:23177] (5 of 6) [CMA-690/2012] disability as Ex.38. The admission indicate that this claimant has not filed document relating to age and income. The admission also indicate that he has signed on Ex.A-2. As per Ex.11, the claimant was admitted in JLN Medical College and Hospital from 21.11.2006 to 27.11.2006 and in Government Hospital, Beawar from 03.12.2006 to 04.12.2006. The only prescription is Ex.13. There is no prescription after 27.12.2006. The permanent disability Ex.38 was issued on 02.02.2008 but no Doctor was examined to prove this permanent disability. 10. A perusal of record indicate that this claimant has neither filed any document about age nor about his income. The Tribunal on basis of general trend has determined the income @ ₹1500/- per month. Similarly, on basis of Schedule, it has applied the multiplier of 13. Having considered the material on record it is apparent that there is a discrepancy in certificate for permanent disability and moreover, the Doctor who issued the PD certificate was not examined to prove the disability. It is also apparent that this appellant has not undergone any treatment after December, 2006. 11. In case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that all permanent disabilities arising from injuries do not result in loss of earning capacity. Here in this case, the claimant has failed to prove that he lost his earning capacity. Though, determination of compensation by learned Tribunal is contrary to the principle of law but looking to material on record there is nothing on basis of which the loss of income can be assessed or other grounds can be considered for award of compensation. The provision of Motor Accident Claims [2025:RJ-JP:23177] (6 of 6) [CMA-690/2012] are often considered as benevolent and aiming to prove compensation to the victim and their families affected by road accident. 12. It is duty of the claimant to bring all facts with relevant evidence on record so that a proper and adequate compensation be granted to the claimant. 13. Having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that no case is made out for interference. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed 14. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant Civil Miscellaneous appeal is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/115/supp