[2026:RJ-JP:5457] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5301/2017 Dharam Raj S/o Devikishan, Aged 28 years, R/o Karni Nagar, Nanta Thana Kunhadi, Kota (Raj.). ----Appellant Versus 1. Devi Lal S/o Modu Lal, R/o Naya Kheda, Thana Kunhadi, Kota, Raj. (Driver Tractor No. RJ-8-R-2810) 2. Sambhu Lal Saini S/o Laxman Saini, R/o Silore, Thana Kotwali, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi, Raj. (Owner Tractor) 3. Heera Bai W/o Uddaji, R/o Silore, Thana Kotwali, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi, Raj. (Regd. Owner Tractor) 4. National Insurance Company Limited, Jhalawar Road, Kota. Raj. (Insurer of Tractor No. RJ-8-R-2810) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Jain, Adv. (For Insurance Company) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Judgment 19/01/2026 1- vihykFkhZ /keZjkt dh vksj ls ;g vihy /kkjk 173 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e&1988 ds rgr U;k;ky; eksVj okgu nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k dze&1] dksVk ¼ftls vkxs ^fo}ku vf/kdj.k* ds uke ls lacksf/kr fd;k tk,xk½ }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k&1633@2014 ¼582@2008½] /keZjkt o vU; cuke nsohyky o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 11-05-2017 ds fo#) izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 2- vihykFkhZ }kjk fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds le{k] Lo;a ds eksVj nq?kZVuk esa vkgr gks tkus ds QyLo:i dqy 8]83]000@& #i;s Dyse izkIr djus gsrq Dyse ;kfpdk izLrqr dh x;h FkhA fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk mDr Dyse ;kfpdk esa vihykFkhZ dks dqy 2]37]000@& :i;s esa ls vihykFkhZ dh 25 izfr'kr [2026:RJ-JP:5457] (2 of 10) [CMA-5301/2017] ;ksxnk;h mis{kk ds i'pkr 1]77]750@& #i;s dh {kfriwfrZ jkf’k e; C;kt 7-5 izfr’kr lkykuk dh nj ls fnyokbZ x;h gSA fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds mDr vk{ksfir fu.kZ; ls O;fFkr gksdj gLrxr vihy] vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls {kfriwfrZ jkf'k esa c<+ksrjh fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh x;h gSA 3- nkSjkus cgl fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk rdZ jgk fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZ dks oDr ?kVuk vdq'ky Jfed ekurs gq, mldh ekfld vk; 2]190@& :Ik;s fu/kkZfjr dh tkdj =qfV dkfjr dh gS] tcfd oDr ?kVuk vihykFkhZ nw/k] ngh dk O;olk; dj 12]000@& :i;s ekfld vk; vftZr djrk FkkA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk e`rd dks fu/kkZfjr dqy {kfriwfrZ jkf'k esa ls 25 izfr'kr jkf'k dh dVkSrh ;ksXknk;h mis{kk dh en esa dh tkdj =qfV dkfjr dh xbZ gSA tcfd oDr ?kVuk vihykFkhZ eksVjlkbZfdy ij chp esa cSBk Fkk o mDr eksVjlkbZfdy dks egkohj uked O;fDr pyk jgk FkkA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZ dks dkfjr 8 izfr'kr LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk dks lEiw.kZ 'kjhj ds ifjizs{; esa 5 izfr'kr vkadh tkdj Hkh =qfV dkfjr dh gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZ dks Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh vk; o`f) ckcr Hkh dksbZ {kfriwfrZ jkf'k ugha fnyokbZ xbZ gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk 'kkjhfjd o ekufld ihM+k dh en esa rFkk Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh lq[k&lqfo/kk dh deh ds en esa Hkh leqfpr jkf'k ugha fnyokbZ gS rFkk vU; enksa esa Hkh vR;f/kd de jkf'k fnyokbZ x;h gS] ftuesa c<+ksrjh dh tkosA vr% vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy Lohdkj dh tkdj {kfriwfrZ jkf'k esa c<+ksrjh fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;hA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa U;kf;d n`"VkUr (2020) 3 SCC 57, Mohammed Siddique And Another Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. is'k fd;k x;kA 4- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ chek dEiuh dh vksj ls vihykFkhZ ds mijksDr rdksZa dk fojks/k djrs gq, fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr [2026:RJ-JP:5457] (3 of 10) [CMA-5301/2017] fd;s x;s fu.kZ; dh iqf"V fd;s tkus rFkk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls lafLFkr dh x;h vihy dks fujLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;kA 5- nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl lquh x;hA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA 6- gLrxr ekeys dh nq?kZVuk esa vihykFkhZ dks dkfjr gqbZ pksVksa ds QyLOk:i mlds 'kjhj ij dqy 8 izfr'kr dh LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk vkuk ik;k x;k gSA eksVj nq?kZVuk esa vkgr O;fDr;ksa dks {kfriwfrZ fnyok;s tkus ds lanHkZ esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vius U;kf;d n`"Vkar Anant Son of Sidheswar Dukre Vs. Pratap son of Zhampannappa Lamzane & Anr. reported in (2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 450, esa fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gS tks fuEu izdkj ls gS %& “12. In case of motor accidents leading to injuries and disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The claimant is entitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, and enjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries." "13. The purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the position prior to the accident. This Court in Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. explained “just compensation” in the following words:" "15. It goes without saying that in matters of determination of compensation both the tribunal and the court are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a “just compensation”. It is obviously true that determination of a just compensation cannot be equated to a bonanza. At the same time the concept of “just compensation” obviously suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the tribunals and courts. It goes without saying that in matters of determination of compensation both the tribunal and the court are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a “just compensation”. It is obviously true that determination of a just compensation cannot be equated to a bonanza. At the same time the concept of “just compensation” obviously suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the tribunals and courts. This reasonableness on the part of the tribunal and court must be on a large peripheral field.” [2026:RJ-JP:5457] (4 of 10) [CMA-5301/2017] 7- i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd ekeys dh ?kVuk fnukad 09-12-2007 dh crkbZ x;h gSA Dyse ;kfpdk esa oDr ?kVuk vihykFkhZ dks 19 o"kZ dh vk;q dk gksuk crkrs gq, nw/k] ngh dk O;olk; dj 12]000@& :i;s ekfld vk; vftZr djuk crk;k x;k gSA fdUrq viuh vk; ds laca/k esa vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds le{k dksbZ Bksl lk{; izLrqr ugha dh x;h gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZ dks vdq'ky Jfed ekurs gq, mldh vk; U;wure etnwjh ds vk/kkj ij 2]190@& #i;s ekfld fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSA gLrxr ekeys dh ?kVuk fnukad 09-12-2007 dh gksuk tkfgj gSA ?kVuk ds nks ekg i'pkr vFkkZr fnukad 01-03-2008 dks jktLFkku ljdkj ds Je foHkkx }kjk U;wure etnwjh dh ubZ njsa fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ Fkh] ftlds vuqlkj vdq'ky Jfed dh nSfud vk; 100@& :i;s fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSA mDr nSfud vk; ds vk/kkj ij ge vihykFkhZ dh ekfld vk; 3]000@& :i;s fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk mfpr le>rs gaSA fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZ dh fu/kkZfjr ekfld vk; esa Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh vk; dh dksbZ c<+ksrjh ugha dh x;h gSA oDr ?kVuk vihykFkhZ dk 19 o"khZ; Lofu;ksftr O;olk;h gksuk tkfgj gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa us'kuy bZa';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM cuke iz.k; lsBh o vU;% ¼2017½ 16 ,l- lh-lh- 680 esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vuqlkj vihykFkhZ dh vk;q dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, mijksDr fu/kkZfjr ekfld vk; 3]000@& #i;s ij 40 izfr'kr dh Hkfo";&o`f) fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA 3]000@& #i;s dk 40 izfr'kr 1]200@& #i;s gksrk gSA mDr 40 izfr'kr jkf'k dks vihykFkhZ dh fu/kkZfjr ekfld vk; esa tksM+s tkus ds mijkar vihykFkhZ dh dqy ekfld vk; 4]200@& #i;s gksrh gS] tks {kfriwfrZ ds fu/kkZj.k dk vk/kkj jgsxhA 8- gLrxr nq?kZVuk esa vkbZ pksVksa ds QyLo:i vihykFkhZ ds isV dh frYyh QV tkuk] cka;s gkFk dh cktw dh gM~Mh esa vfLFkHkax gksuk rFkk 'kjhj ds vU; Hkkxksa esa xaHkhj o lk/kkj.k pksVsa vkuk tkfgj gSA ftuds lkewfgd izHkko ls vihykFkhZ ds 'kjhj esa dqy 8 izfr’kr LFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk vkuk ik;k x;k gS] tSlk fd LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk izek.k i= izn'kZ&287 ds voyksdu ls [2026:RJ-JP:5457] (5 of 10) [CMA-5301/2017] Li"V gSA fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZ dks dkfjr pksVksa ds vk/kkj ij mldh LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk lEiw.kZ 'kjhj ds ifjizs{; esa 5 izfr’kr vkadh xbZ gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr U;kf;d n`"VkUr 2025 SCC Online SC 276, Prakash Chand Sharma Vs. Rambabu Saini & Anr. esa fuEufyf[kr er O;Dr fd;k gS%& ”9. The Tribunal questioned the competence of the Medical Board to assess the permanent disability of the claimant-appellant, terming the certificate of the Medical Board as not completely reliable. If the Tribunal had reason to doubt the medical certificate, the option available before it was to have the disability re-assessed but it could not have gone into the details of the determination of disability. Since that course of action has not been adopted, the opinion of the Medical Board, being an opinion of the experts is to be treated as such. That apart, the comatose state of the claimant- appellant is not in dispute.” 9- vr% Prakash Chand Sharma (supra) ds ekeys esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vuqlkj gLrxr ekeys esa ge vihykFkhZ ds LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk izek.k i= izn'kZ&287 esa vafdr 8 izfr'kr LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk dks lEiw.kZ 'kjhj ds ifjizs{; esa 8 izfr'kr vkadk tkuk mfpr le>rs gSaA rn~uqlkj vihykFkhZ dh ekfld vk; 4]200@& #i;s dk 8 izfr’kr 336@& #i;s gksrh gS] tks vihykFkhZ dks Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh vk; dh ekfld {kfr gSA oDr ?kVuk vihykFkhZ dh vk;q 19 o"kZ gksuk tkfgj gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ljyk oekZ o vU; cuke nsgyh VªkaliksVZ dkWiksZjs'ku o vU; fjiksVsZM bu ¼2009½ 6 ,l-lh-lh- 121 rFkk iz.k; lsBh ¼mijksDr½ ds ekeyksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vuqlkj vihykFkhZ dks Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh vk; dh {kfriwfrZ dh x.kuk gsrq vihykFkhZ dh vk;q dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, 18 dk xq.kd yxk;k tkuk visf{kr gSA rn~uqlkj vihykFkhZ dks Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh vk; dh dqy {kfr 336 x 12 x 18 = 72]576@& #i;s gksrh gS] tks vihykFkhZ izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gSA [2026:RJ-JP:5457] (6 of 10) [CMA-5301/2017] 10- fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZ dks 'kkjhfjd o ekufld ihM+k dh en esa 7]893@& :Ik;s rFkk esfMdy fcyksa ds iquHkZj.k dh en esa 1]97]170@& :i;s dh jkf'k fnyokbZ xbZ gS] ftuesa dksbZ gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk ge mfpr ugha le>rs gSaA 11- fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZ dks Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh lq[k&lqfo/kk dh deh ds en esa dksbZ jkf'k ugha fnyokbZ x;h gSA vr% Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh lq[k&lqfo/kk dh deh ds en esa ge] vihykFkhZ dks 10]000@& #i;s dh jkf'k fnyok;k tkuk mfpr le>rs gSaA 12- fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZ dks ikSf"Vd vkgkj ,oa vLirky vkokxeu dh en esa ,deq'r 5]000@& :i;s dh jkf'k fnyokbZ xbZ gS] tks de izrhr gksrh gS rFkk ftlesa c<+ksrjh fd;k tkuk ge mfpr le>rs gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g U;k;ky; ikSf"Vd vkgkj ,oa vLirky vkokxeu dh en esa ,deq'r 10]000@& :i;s dh jkf'k vihykFkhZ dks fnyok;k tkuk mfpr le>rh gSaA 13- fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZ dks 45 fnuksa rd vLirky esa HkrhZ jgus dh en esa i`Fkd ls dksbZ jkf'k ugha fnyokbZ xbZ gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g vihykFkhZ dks 45 fnuksa rd vLirky esa HkrhZ jgus dh en esa 400@& :i;s izfrfnu dh nj ls 18]000@& :i;s dh jkf'k fnyok;k tkuk mfpr le>rh gSA 14- fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk 45 fnuksa dh vk; dh {kfr ds en 73@& :i;s izfrfnu dh nj ls 3]285@& :i;s dh jkf'k vihykFkhZ dks fnyokbZ xbZ gSA gLrxr ekeys dh nq?kZVuk esa vihykFkhZ ds dkfjr gqbZ pksVksa ds QyLo:i vihykFkhZ djhc 2 ekg rd dk;Z djus esa vleFkZ jgk gksxkA ,slh fLFkfr esa ge 2 ekg dh vk; dh gkfu ds en esa 3,000x2=6,000@& #i;s dh jkf'k vihykFkhZ dks fnyok;k tkuk mfpr le>rs gSaA 15- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk gLrxr ekeys ds laca/k esa ,d eq[; rdZ ;g jgk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k us ekeys dh ?kVuk esa iz’uxr okgu VªsDVj la[;k vkjts&08&vkj&2810 ds pkyd vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 dh 75 [2026:RJ-JP:5457] (7 of 10) [CMA-5301/2017] izfr'kr rFkk vkgr@vihykFkhZ dk oDr ?kVuk rhu O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk eksVjlkbZfdy ij lokj gksus ds dkj.k vihykFkhZ dh Hkh 25 izfr'kr xQyr o ykijokgh ekurs gq, vihykFkhZ dks izkIr dqy {kfriwfrZ jkf'k esa 25 izfr'kr dh dVkSrh dh tkdj =qfV dkfjr dh gSA 16- bl laca/k esa fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr (2020) 3 SCC 57, Mohammed Siddique And Another Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA mDr U;kf;d n`"VkUr esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd %& "12. But the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with the driver and another person may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two-wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one person on the motor cycle. Section 194-C, inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of safety measures for motor cycle drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous injury or even death [2026:RJ-JP:5457] (8 of 10) [CMA-5301/2017] due to the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked. It is not the case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three persons riding on a motor cycle. It is not even the case of the insurer that the accident would have been averted, if three persons were not riding on the motor cycle. The fact that the motor cycle was hit by the car from behind, is admitted. Interestingly, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was wearing a helmet and that the deceased was knocked down after the car hit the motor cycle from behind, are all not assailed. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that 2 persons on the pillion of the motor cycle, could have added to the imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous and is not based either upon pleading or upon the evidence on record. Nothing was extracted from PW-3 to the effect that 2 persons on the pillion added to the imbalance. 13. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victim contributed either to the accident or to the nature of the injuries sustained, the victim could not have been held guilty of contributory negligence. Hence the reduction of 10% towards contributory negligence, is clearly unjustified and the same has to be set aside." 17- bl izdkj rhu yksxksa ds eksVjlkbZfdy ij cSBdj ;k=k djus ls ;krk;kr fu;eksa dh vogsyuk rks gks ldrh gS] fdUrq blls ;ksxnk;h mis{kk lkfcr ugha ekuh tk ldrh gS] tc rd dh ;g r; ugha dj fn;k tk;s fd rhu yksxksa ds eksVjlkbZfdy ij cSBus ls mldk larqyu fcxM+k gks vkSj mldh ykijokgh ls nq?kZVuk dkfjr gqbZ gksA lkFk gh chek daiuh us vf/kdj.k ds le{k tokc nkos esa ;g vfHkopu ugha fy;k gS fd rhu yksxksa ds eksVjlkbZfdy ij cSBdj tkus ls nq?kZVuk ?kfVr gqbZ gksA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj eksVjlkbZfdy egkohj pyk jgk FkkA bl izdkj vihykFkhZ [2026:RJ-JP:5457] (9 of 10) [CMA-5301/2017] eksVjlkbZfdy ij cSBk Fkk] pkyd ugha Fkk] tc vihykFkhZ eksVjlkbZfdy pyk gh ugha jgk Fkk rks mldh mis{kk ugha ekuh tk ldrhA 18- vr% fo}ku vf/kdj.k us e`rd dh ;ksxnk;h mis{kk ekurs gq, fu/kkZfjr {kfriwfrZ jkf’k esa ;ksxnk;h mis{kk ds laca/k esa 25 izfr’kr jkf’k dh tks dVkSrh dh gS] mls ge =qfViw.kZ gksuk ikrs gSaA vr% fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls ;ksxnk;h mis{kk ds laca/k esa mBk;k x;k rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr lEiw.kZ {kfriwfrZ jkf'k] vihykFkhZ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ik;k tkrk gSA 19- mDrkuqlkj vihykFkhZ@DysesaV fuEu izdkj ls {kfriwfrZ jkf'k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gSa %& Øe la- 'kh"kZ@en bl fu.kZ; ds rgr fu/kkZfjr dh x;h jkf’k 1- Hkfo"; dh vk; dh {kfr ds en esa 72]576@& #i;s 2- 'kkjhfjd o ekufld ihM+k dh en esa 7]893@& :i;s 3- esfMdy fcyksa ds iquHkZj.k dh en esa 1]97]170@& :i;s 4- Hkfo"; dh lq[k&lqfo/kk dh deh ds en esa 10]000@& #i;s 5- ikSf"Vd vkgkj o vLirky vkokxeu dh en esa 10]000@& :i;s 6- 45 fnu vLirky esa HkrhZ jgus dh en esa 18]000@& :i;s 7- 2 ekg dh vk; dh {kfr ds en esa 6]000@& :i;s 8- bl U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ {kfriwfrZ jkf'k 3]21]639@& #i;s 9- fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk fnyokbZ xbZ {kfriwfrZ jkf'k 1]77]750@& #i;s 10- c<+ksrjh i'pkr {kfriwfrZ jkf'k esa varj 1]43]889@& #i;s 20- rnuqlkj ;g vihy vkaf’kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkdj fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr iapkV] ftlds }kjk vihykFkhZ@DysesaV dks dqy {kfriwfrZ jkf'k 2]37]000@& :i;s esa ls 25 izfr'kr ;ksxnk;h mis{kk dh dVkSrh ds i'pkr 1]77]750@& :i;s fnyok;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ds LFkku ij 3]21]639@& :i;s dk iapkV ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA mDr jkf'k ij fu;ekuqlkj vk;dj dVkSrh dh tkosxhA vihykFkhZ }kjk iwoZ esa izkIr dh x;h jkf’k dks iapkV jkf’k esa ls lek;ksftr fd;k tkdj 'ks"k jkf’k vihykFkhZ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ik;k tkrk gSaA [2026:RJ-JP:5457] (10 of 10) [CMA-5301/2017] 21- bl vkns'k }kjk c<+kbZ xbZ {kfriwfrZ jkf'k ij ;kfpdk nk;j djus dh frfFk ls vihykFkhZ] 8 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSaA 22- rnuqlkj ;g vihy fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA 23- lHkh yfEcr izkFkZuk&i=ksa dks Hkh mijksDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J Badal /22