[2025:RJ-JP:25964] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2432/2007 Mohammad Mehfuz s/o Shri Mohd Abdul Majid aged 25 years, resident of 78-A Talvandi Kota. ----Claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Mahendra Singh Belt No.902 Constable Police Station, Gumanpura District Kota (Raj)(Driver Jeep No.RJ-20-C 4656 P.S. Gumanpura Kota) 2. State of Rajasthan through S.P. City Kota. 3. The Superintendent of Police, City Kota (Raj.) ----Non-Claimant/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Naseem Uddin Qazi For Respondent(s) : Ms. Suman Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 12/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant 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 29.03.2006 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.O.A.), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota (hereinafter to be referred to as the "learned Tribunal") in misc. Claim Petition No.(605/2000) (121/2005), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant has been partly allowed and compensation of Rs.12,198/- along with interest of 6% p.a. has been awarded. [2025:RJ-JP:25964] (2 of 5) [CMA-2432/2007] 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that the claim petition was filed by the claimant/appellant stating that on 24.09.1996, the claimant was returning from Gumanpura to Kotdi on scooter as a pillion rider along with his brother-in-law Pervez Rahi. Claimant/appellant's brother-in-law was driving the scooter bearing registration No.RJ-20-1M-7269. Suddenly, a Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-20-C-4656 came from opposite side which was driven by the respondent No.1-Mahendra Singh-driver of the Jeep in rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter of the claimant/appellant, due to which the claimant/appellant sustained five injuries including two grievous injuries. Therefore, the claimant had filed claim petition seeking just and fair compensation. 3. Notice of the claim petition was issued to non-claimants/respondents, wherein non-claimant/respondents No.1 and 2 filed reply to the claim petition and submitted that accident occurred due to negligency of the injured. They further submitted that the driver of the scooter No. RJ-20-1M-7269 had no valid driving license. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues. 5. In order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim, the claimant examined AW-1 Mohammed Mehfuz and AW-2 Pervez Rahi and produced documents Ex.1 to Ex.73. 6. In rebuttal, the respondent has examined Mahendra Singh as NAW-1. [2025:RJ-JP:25964] (3 of 5) [CMA-2432/2007] 7. After considering the records of the case, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while deciding the claim petition has awarded compensation of Rs.24,397/- but while taking note of contributory negligence of injured, the learned Tribunal held that 50% of the awarded amount shall be borne by the claimant himself and accordingly awarded sum of Rs.12,198/- (Remaining 50% amount) along with interest @ 6%. 8. Being aggrieved of which, the claimant/appellant has preferred the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits that looking to the fact that claimant/appellant suffered five injuries (three simple and two grievous), the amount so awarded under the impugned award is inadequate and may be enhanced. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent 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 and the amount so awarded is the just compensation, and hence, does not call for any interference or enhancement by this Court. 11. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. It is evident from the records of the case that the claimant was being hospitalized from 24.09.1996 to 10.10.1996, thus remained hospitalized for 17 days. But no amount was awarded for hospitalization of the claimant when the appellant was admitted in the hospital. It is also revealed that under the head of [2025:RJ-JP:25964] (4 of 5) [CMA-2432/2007] pain and suffering, Rs.3,000/- has been awarded and under the head of food and nutrition no amount has been awarded. 13. Looking to the injuries sustained by the injured, this Court is of the opinion that the amount awarded under the heads of 'pain and suffering' and 'food and nutrition' are required to be enhanced. 14. 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:- Two grievous injuries (+) Rs.10,000/- Three simple injuries (+) Rs.3,000/- Medical expenses (+) Rs.7,631/- Travel expense due to hospitalization (+) Rs.766/- Physical Pain & Mental Agony (+) Rs.10,000/- Food & Nutrition (+) Rs.3,000/- Total Rs.34,397/- Deduction 50% due to contributory negligence Rs.17,198.5/- Already Awarded Amount (-) Rs.12,198/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.5,000.5/- Round off Rs. 5000/- 15. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.17,198/- from the original amount of Rs.12,198/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.5000/- before the learned concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within sixty (60) days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant is also entitled to get [2025:RJ-JP:25964] (5 of 5) [CMA-2432/2007] interest on the enhanced amount Rs.5,000/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the realization of the said amount. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced as per the terms indicated above. 17. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /129