[2025:RJ-JP:16131] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2513/2008 Girraj Prasad S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Sahu, R/o Village- Baler, Tehsil Khandar, District- Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus 1. Virendra Kumar Luthra S/o Shri Tilak Raj Luthra, R/o 29, I.h.s. Colony, Bajariya, Sawai- Madhopur Raj. 2. Smt. Saroj Luthra W/o Shri Virendra Luthra, R/o 29, I.h.s. Colony, Bajariya, Sawai- Madhopur Raj. 3. Ram Sahay Rathor S/o Shri Kalyan Mal Rathor, R/o Village Baler, Tehsil Khandar, Distt. Sawai Madhopur 4. United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Mantown, Bajariya, Sawai Madhopur Raj. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sagar Jindal on behalf of Mr. Akhilesh Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Singhal for respondent No.3 Mr. Lokesh Parihar for respondent No.4 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 15/04/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant for enhancement of the amount awarded vide order dated 08.02.2008 passed the MACT, Sawai Madhopur in Case No.45/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant sustained injuries in his right leg on account of accident. In the present case, the Insurance Company has been exonerated and liability has been fastened upon the respondents No.1 and 2. 3. Learned MACT Court, while hearing arguments of the respective parties and perusing the petition and evidence on [2025:RJ-JP:16131] (2 of 3) [CMA-2513/2008] record, awarded compensation of Rs.32,034/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Tribunal awarded a meager amount despite having 3% disability. He further submits that while awarding expenses for transportation etc., a meager sum of Rs.500/- was awarded as against bills amounting to Rs.9,880/- so produce, therefore, he prays that the amount so awarded be enhanced. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that there is no scope for enhancement of compensation in the present matter and the appeal may kindly be rejected. 6. Heard and perused the impugned order as also record available. 7. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the appellant sustained only one injury and as per the permanent disability certificate, has sustained a permanent disability of 3% and has been awarded a sum of Rs.28,000/-. Further, towards the transportation charges only certain inadmissible, unreliable receipts have been filed by the appellant and the said receipts can not be considered as proved documents in the absence of the oral evidence of the person who allegedly issued the same. Thus, contention of the appellant lacks merit. In this case, the appellant has failed to prove any good reason for enhancement of the compensation under the Act for physical and mental disability, hospitalization or travelling expenses. [2025:RJ-JP:16131] (3 of 3) [CMA-2513/2008] 8. Under the impugned award, the reasons so given for awarding compensation of Rs.32,034/- appears to be just and proper and there is no arbitrariness or perverseness in the said impugned order. 9. The present appeal is devoid of merit and same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to cost. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/36