[2025:RJ-JP:27293] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2718/2009 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Bypass Road Bundi Having Its Regional Office Atr Sahara Chamber, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted Attorney ----Non-claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Khwaju Khan S/o Abdul Rehaman, R/o Behind Badi Masjid, Brahmpuri, Tehsil And District Bundi ----Claimants/Respondents 2. Amir Mohammad S/o Ghasi Khan, R/o Devpura, Bundi (Driver) 3. Mahendra Dabi S/o Ram Lal, R/o A-2, Santosh Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Owner) ----Non-Claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed with Mr. Rakshit Jain for Mr. Ajeet Bhandari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra with Mr. Harshit Parashar Ms. Poonam Rao Ms. Gunjan Chawla HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 22/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 02.02.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge Fast Track (I), Bundi, in claim case No.337/2008 titled as Khwaju Khan vs. Amir Mohd. & Ors., whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent No.1 [2025:RJ-JP:27293] (2 of 4) [CMA-2718/2009] was allowed and awarded a compensation of Rs.44,876/- along with interest @ 6 per annum. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 01.12.2008 Khwaju Khan was walking towards his shop when he reached K.N. Circle, a Maruti 800 Car bearing registration No. RJ-14-4C-2293 driven by the respondent No.2 while reversing his car hit the claimant due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his hands and a fracture in his left leg, therefore, the claimant filed the claim petition for awarding just compensation. 3. After receiving notice of the claim petition, the non- claimants/respondent Nos.2 & 3 jointly filed their reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the non-claimant/appellant- Insurance Company, therefore, if any liability is found due, the same may be fastened upon the Insurance Company and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The non-claimant/appellant- Insurance Company also filed a reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that at the time of accident, the non- claimant/respondent No.2- driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license, therefore, the Insurance Company may not be held liable to pay compensation. It was also submitted that involvement of the vehicle is also a matter in issue, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed four (4) issues. [2025:RJ-JP:27293] (3 of 4) [CMA-2718/2009] 6. In order to substantiate the averments, the claimant/respondent No.1 examined himself as AW-1 and produced documents Ex.1 to Ex.61. 7. In rebuttal, non-claimants/appellant- Insurance Company examined NAW-1 Prabhu Lal and produced documents Ex. A-1 to A-3. 8. After hearing arguments of respective parties and while taking note of the fact that the claimant filed the claim petition under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, learned trial Court awarded a compensation of Rs.44,876/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 9. Being aggrieved of which, the present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant- Insurance Company submits that the award passed by learned Court below is unsustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that the amount awarded to the claimant is on higher side, therefore, the impugned award may be suitably modified. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the said submission and submits that learned trial Court has considered the facts in detail and correctly appreciated the pleadings of the parties and also considered the fact that the injured sustained injuries in a road accident dated 01.12.2007 while Maruti 800 Car bearing registration No. RJ-14-4C-2293 was reversing back has caused injuries to the injured, therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeal and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:27293] (4 of 4) [CMA-2718/2009] 12. Heard and considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. 13. From the record of the case, it is evident that the claimant/respondent No.1 remained hospitalized for three days (01.12.2007 to 03.12.2007) and later on again he remained hospitalized from 03.12.2007 to 10.12.2007 on account of fatal injuries in his left leg and from the injury report (Ex.10), X-ray (Ex.11) and permanent disability certificate (Ex.12), it is reflected that the learned Trial Court considered all the material aspects while awarding the compensation to the claimant. 14. From bare perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that in view of the injuries sustained by the injured, it cannot be said that the impugned award of Rs.44,876/- is on a higher side. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company lack merits. 15. Even otherwise out of total compensation of Rs.44,876/-, 50% amount has already been disbursed to the claimants in terms of the order dated 18.05.2009 passed by this Court, therefore, also looking to the remaining quantum of Rs.22,438/-, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present appeal. 16 Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant- Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. 17. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-35