[2025:RJ-JP:20178] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1390/2019 Ghanshyam S/o Soran Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Daudpur, Police Station Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra (U.p.) ----Appellant/Claimant Versus 1. Amar Singh S/o Ramkhilari, R/o Jahanpur, Police Station Halaina, District Bharatpur (Driver Of Vehicle No. Rj-14- Ga-5376) 2. Surendra Singh S/o Shri Soran Singh, R/o Vill. Daulatgarh, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Owner Of Vehicle No.rj-14-Ga-5376) 3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, A-25/27, Asafali Road, New Delhi Service Through Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Nayi Mandi, Station Road, Bharatpur, Raj. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Rj-14-Ga- 5376) ----Non-Claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni Ms. Shara Pradaya Rajora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sikandar Singh Sakkarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 13/05/2025 1. Instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) with a challenge to finding and observation given by the learned judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur (in short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide its judgment dated 05.12.2018 in Motor Accident Claim No.1680/2016 (50/2010) with regard to assessment of the quantum of compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the [2025:RJ-JP:20178] (2 of 5) [CMA-1390/2019] claimant/appellant as Rs.2990/- per month, whereas, there is cogent evidence on record in the form of AW1 and NAW1, which clearly establishes that the income of the claimant/appellant at the time of accident was Rs.5,000/- per month. Learned counsel further submits that the employer of the appellant/claimant in his oral evidence as NAW1 has clearly stated that the appellant/claimant was engaged by him as a driver for a remuneration of Rs.5000/- per month. Learned counsel further submits that very meagre amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded under the heads of pain and suffering. Learned counsel also submits that in the accident, the appellant/claimant has lost his both legs and has sustained 100% disability. Learned counsel further submits that no amount has been awarded for the attendant. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant further submits that since the appellant/claimant has lost his both legs, he would require the assistance of an attendant for his entire life but the Claims Tribunal has not awarded single penny for the same. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3- Insurance Company though opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and submits that since there is no documentary evidence with regard to income submitted by the appellant/claimant, the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the appellant/claimant as he was having valid driving licence. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Insurance Company has not disputed the fact that the appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation under the heads of pain and suffering. [2025:RJ-JP:20178] (3 of 5) [CMA-1390/2019] He further submits that the appellant/claimant could get the artificial legs and, therefore, the claim towards the attendant for the entire life is not justified. 4. Heard. 5. Considered the submission made at bar and also perused the record. 6. The first issue arises for consideration is that whether the income of the appellant/claimant ascertained by the Claims Tribunal is justified. In the claim petition, the appellant/claimant has averred that he is having a valid driving licence for driving a transport vehicle, which was issued to him long back and renewed in the year 2008. It was also stated that the appellant/claimant was engaged by the employer- Surendra Singh for driving his vehicle Truck for the remuneration of Rs.5,000/- per month. The employer- Surendra Singh was examined as NAW1 and he has also specifically stated that the appellant/claimant was engaged by him for driving his Truck and he was paying him Rs.5,000/- per month. The accident took place on 14.10.2009 and a notice was given to the owner of the vehicle i.e. to Surendra Singh (NAW1). The owner Surendra Singh of the alleged vehicle, on 19.10.2009 i.e. after five days of the accident, gave in writing that the appellant/claimant was engaged as a second driver on his Truck. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the appellant/claimant has failed to establish the fact of his employment, is not justified for the very reason that there is ample evidence on record, which clearly proves that the appellant/claimant was employed by Surendra Singh as a driver for driving his Truck and in aforesaid circumstances, this Court [2025:RJ-JP:20178] (4 of 5) [CMA-1390/2019] assesses the income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.5,000/- and the appellant/claimant is entitled for the compensation for loss of income on the basis of claimed monthly income as Rs.5,000/-. the appellant/claimant is also entitled for the future prospects at the rate of 40%. The appellant/claimant who has lost his both legs in the alleged accident, a meagre monetary relief can never compensate his pain and suffering, however, for determining the compensation, the Court has to determine the reasonable amount. 8. Since, the appellant/claimant has lost his both legs in the alleged accident and he has life long suffering, physical and mentally pain, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant/claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities. 9. Since the appellant/claimant has lost his both legs in the said accident, he would be requiring an attendant for daily routine and for that he would be entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- in lump sum. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation amount as under:- S.No. Compensation heads Amount awarded Total 1. Loss of Income 5000X12X17 Rs.10,20,000/- 2. Future prospects 40% Rs.4,08,000/- 3. Pain Suffering Rs.2,50,000/- Rs.2,500,000/- 4. Attendant Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- Total 44,28,000/- [2025:RJ-JP:20178] (5 of 5) [CMA-1390/2019] 11. The amount already paid would be adjusted against the amount as ordered by this Court. 12. The appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the total amount (after deducting the amount already paid) from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. from 09.02.2010 up-til actual realization. 13. Accordingly, the present civil misc. Appeal is disposed of as above. 14. Record of the Claim Tribunal be sent back. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /83