[2025:RJ-JP:29346] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1076/2009 State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur through Officer Incharge. ----Appellant Versus 1. Kishanlal S/o Shri Shankarlal Sharma village Latur, Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur. 2. M/s S.K. Enterprises, Ekta Colony, Ghatgate, Jaipur 3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, M.I. Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy. GC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tripurari Sharma with Ms. Vijay Laxmi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 01/08/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the claimant/appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 26.09.2008 passed by learned Special Court (Communal Riots)-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in MACT Case No.1232/2004 (602/96), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant was partly allowed and a sum of Rs.6,000/- was awarded as compensation on account of damage to the vehicle. 2. Since the facts of the case are not disputed, the facts of the case have not been reiterated herein. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding an inadequate amount of [2025:RJ-JP:29346] (2 of 4) [CMA-1076/2009] compensation on account of damage to the claimant/appellant's vehicle, whereas from the documentary evidence in Ex.15 to Ex.18 it is well-proved that the claimant/appellant has sustained a loss of Rs.40,968/-, but the learned Tribunal erroneously awarded only Rs.6,000/-; therefore, the impugned award may kindly be suitably enhanced. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the said submissions and submits that the learned Tribunal, after taking due consideration of the facts at hand as well as the provision of Section 147(2)(B) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and cover note/Insurance Policy appended in Ex.10, has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- as compensation. He further submits that there is no legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned award warranting any interference by this Court; therefore, the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Admittedly, in the present appeal, the only question involved is in respect of damage to the claimant/appellant's property (truck bearing registration No. RJ-14-G-3500) due to the accident in question. 7. From the record of the case, it is reflected that for the repair of the said truck, a sum of Rs.10,968/- was spent on repairs as per the statement of Shyam Gopal (AW-1) and Ex.15 to Ex.18. 8. Though, from the above it is reflected that the amount spent on the repair of the said truck was more than Rs.6,000/-, but it is also evident that the learned Tribunal also considered the cover [2025:RJ-JP:29346] (3 of 4) [CMA-1076/2009] note/Insurance Policy appended in Ex.10., wherein a limit of Rs.6,000/- has been fixed in respect of damage to any property of a third party. 9. Therefore, the learned Tribunal: (i) after considering the provisions of Section 147 (2)(B) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 where a limit of Rs.6,000 has been fixed in respect of damage to any property of a third party; and (ii) while considering the cover note/Insurance Policy appended in Ex.10, where also a limit of Rs.6,000/- was fixed towards the loss of property, has awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- as compensation. Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned award suffers from any legal infirmity. 10. Since the awarded amount is in consonance with the insurance policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant lack merit, and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. The view expressed in the impugned award is further fortified by a catena of judgments in the matter of: (i) Arjun Lal v. Narendra Singh & Ors. reported in 2010 R.A.R. 411 (Raj.), (ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in 2006 (2) T.A.C. 752 (P&H), (iii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Udai Singh & Ors. reported in 2010 R.A.R. 157 (Raj.), (iv) Oriental Insurance Company v. Vishwanath & Ors. reported in 1997 (2) T.A.C 788 (M.P.), (v) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lalchand Gupta & Ors. in M.A. No. 398/1986 (Madhya Pradesh High Court), and (vi) New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Chandu and Ors. reported in 1996 DNJ (Raj.) 30. [2025:RJ-JP:29346] (4 of 4) [CMA-1076/2009] 12. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 13. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-3