[2025:RJ-JP:19279] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 768/2008 Smt. Vimla Gokhru w/o Shri Prem Chand Gokhru, aged about 50 years, r/o 11/52, near shiv mandir, vaishali nagar, Ajmer ----Claimant-Appellant Versus 1. Jai Prakash @ Jeku s/o Shri Ramesh Kumar, r/o H.No.M-24, Sagar vihar colony, vaishali nagar, Ajmer ((Driver of the Scooter No.RJ-01-4M-1977) 2. Ramesh Kumar s/o Shri Teekam Das, aged about 50 years, r/o H.No.M-24, sagar vihar colony, vaishali nagar, (Owner of the above vehicle) ----Non-claimants-Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. J. P. Gupta with Mr. Yashwardhan Agarwal, Ms. Shreya Khandal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 07/05/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the judgment and award dated 20.08.2007 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred to as "MACT Court") in Claim Case No.493/2005 tilted as "Smt. Vimla Gokhru Vs. Jai Prakash @ Jeku & Anr.", whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant has been partly allowed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant was going as pedestrian on 14.11.2011, and she was struck by the respondent No.1 while he was driving a Scooter bearing Registration No.RJ-01-4M-7977 rashly and negligently. As [2025:RJ-JP:19279] (2 of 3) [CMA-768/2008] a result thereof, the appellant sustained various injuries and she has filed a claim petition. It was further stated that at the time of the accident, the age of the appellant was 48 years and she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by doing tailoring work etc. 3. The notice of the claim petition was served upon the respondents, wherein the respondent No.1 remained ex-parte and the respondent No.2 filed a reply denying the averments made in the claim petition, and prayed for dismissal. 4. After hearing learned counsels for the parties, the learned MACT Court partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/- as compensation. Furthermore, while considering the fact that the claimant had already received a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the no-fault liability, therefore the learned MACT Court ordered that no further amount of compensation is required to be paid to the appellant. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned MACT Court erred in awarding inadequate compensation, looking at the age and earning of the appellant. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 7. From the record of the case, it is revealed that the age of the appellant was 48 years at the time of the accident, and there is no convincing evidence available with regard to the income of the injured. Therefore, the reasoning recorded by the learned MACT Court under the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity. The amount awarded under the impugned award is just and proper. It is also relevant to note that although the learned MACT Court has awarded compensation to the tune of [2025:RJ-JP:19279] (3 of 3) [CMA-768/2008] Rs.18,000/-. But while considering the fact that MV Act is a welfare legislation and during the course of trial, the apellant had already received excess amount more than awarded amount, by way of interim award under section 140 of the MV Act (No fault libality), therefore, the learned MACT Court has adopted a liberal approach and ordered that instead of recovery of excess sum of Rs.7,000/- ,the compensation should be treated as Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, the MACT Court has ordered that instead of recovering the amount paid, the compensation amount should be treated as Rs.25,000/-. 8. The reasonings and findings recorded by the learned MACT Court under the impugned order do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant does not appear to be well-founded so this appeal is devoid of merit, thus deserves to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost. 10. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/59