[2026:RJ-JP:4542] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1229/2005 Roop Narain son of Sh. Panchu Lal Tiwadi, resident of Jai Krishanpura, P.S. Peepalu, District Tonk (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. Om Prakash son of Shri Prabhati Lal Mahajan, resident of Khatolai, P.S. Shahpura, District Tonk (Raj.) 2. Girraj Prasad son of Shri Damodar Prasad Maheshwari, resident of Kheda Raniwas, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur (Raj.) 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Vishal Chamber, Tonk Road, Jaipur through Regional Manager. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshit Tiwari for Mrs. Shruti Dixit HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 31/01/2026 1. The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant Roop Narian son of Sh. Panchu Lal Tiwadi, challenging the award dated 07.02.2005, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, whereby the Claim Petition No. 596/2004 (1981/2001) (174/1997) was allowed and awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- in favour of the appellant claimant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim i.e. 30.05.1997. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the accident as caused by the vehicle of respondent No.2, the [2026:RJ-JP:4542] (2 of 3) [CMA-1229/2005] appellant’s residential house suffered a major damage, which was calculated to be more than Rs. 50,000/-, for which the appellant produced several bills relating to purchase of building material. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not rightly assessed the compensation on the basis of evidence on record and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be enhanced by allowing the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company opposed the submission made by counsel for the appellant and submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and passed a just and proper award, therefore, no ground for enhancement is made out and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. This Court considered the fact that initially, the appellant himself lodged a police complaint, stating therein that the damage caused was approximately Rs.15,000-20,000/-. On the said basis, he had initially agreed to compromise for a sum of Rs.5500/-, thereafter, he filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. 5. Learned Tribunal, after considering the fact that initially the appellant himself quantified the damage to be around of Rs.15000/- to Rs.20,000/- and then later on entered into a compromise, wherein the complete damage was quantified to be around Rs.5500/-. After taking into consideration all the documents available on record, learned trial Court fixed the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/-. 6. It is further informed by counsel for the appellant that the total amount as quantified by the learned Tribunal i.e. Rs.15,000/- [2026:RJ-JP:4542] (3 of 3) [CMA-1229/2005] along with 6% interest comes to approximate Rs.43,000/-. It is also pointed out that soon after the award dated 07.02.2005, the claimant has taken a sum of Rs.6000/- from the respondent- Insurance Company in terms of award and therefore, only a sum of Rs.9,000/- is left in terms of the award. 7. As of now, only issue that remains is the balance amount of Rs.9,000/- which, as per the award was required to be paid by the owner of the vehicle, who has not appeared before this Court despite service. This Court also noted from the award that the owner of vehicle was not present even before learned Tribunal and is not present before this Court to contest the present appeal. 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed as the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation amount. Therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby affirmed. 9. The appellant shall be at liberty to take necessary steps to recover the balance amount of Rs. 9000/- along with interest in terms of the award in accordance with law. 10. Pending application (s) if any, stands disposed of. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J PAYAL DHAWAN /10