[2026:RJ-JP:6234] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2473/2024 Vinod Kumar Son Of Puran Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Nadi Ka Gaon, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur. ----Appellant Versus 1. Rohtash Son Of Bhagwan Singh, Resident Of Dhakku Udar, Thana Maant, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh (Driver Truck No. Up-81-BT-6519). 2. Jagveer Singh Son Of Mangi Singh, Resident Of 145, Government School, Gehlau, Tehsil Tjlas, Thana Guda, District Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh (Registered Owner Truck No. Up-81-BT-6519). 3. The Oriental Insruance Company Limited, Branch Office At Nai Mandi, Station Road, Bharatpur Having Its Regional Office At 9-10Th Floor, Nbcc Centre, Sahkar Marg, Jyoti Nagar Extension, Jaipur Through Its Regional Manager (Insurance Company Truck No. Up-81-BT-6519). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur with Mr. Ashish Mittal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amar Nath Pareek JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/02/2026 1. By way of filing the instant appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment and award dated 29.01.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Bayana, District Bharatpur) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC No.186/2018, by which the claim petition submitted by the claimant- [2026:RJ-JP:6234] (2 of 10) [CMA-2473/2024] appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimant’) has been partly allowed and the respondents have been directed to pay a compensation of Rs.18,05,185/- to the claimant. 2. Being dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant seeking suitable enhancement of the amount of compensation under various heads. 3. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that on the date of the accident, i.e. 27.01.2017, when the claimant was riding his motorbike, the driver of the truck bearing No.UP81- BT-6519, i.e. respondent No. 1, while driving the aforesaid truck negligently and recklessly, struck the claimant and caused an accident. Counsel submits that on account of the same, the claimant sustained several injuries on various parts of his body and his right leg was amputated near the hip joint while his left leg was amputated from the ankle. As a result of the accident, the claimant is suffering from 85% permanent disability. Counsel submits that under such like situation, his permanent disability should have been considered as 100%, in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2023 (8) SCC 193. Counsel further submits that under the head of Pain, Suffering and Mental Agony a petty amount of only Rs.25,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. Counsel further submits that the age of the claimant at the time of accident was 19 years and now, he has been deprived of marital benefits as he would not be in a [2026:RJ-JP:6234] (3 of 10) [CMA-2473/2024] position to get married and enjoy a married life. Counsel submits that the Tribunal has not awarded a single penny under the head of loss of marital prospects. He further submits that though the claimant was an agriculturist, but while assessing his monthly income, he should have been treated as a ‘skilled labour’ in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 1070. However, the Tribunal has treated him as an unskilled labour while calculating the compensation awardable under the head of loss of income. Lastly, counsel for the claimant submits that not a single penny has been awarded by the Tribunal for the artificial leg/limb of the claimant. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Rajpoot vs. Ram Singh reported in 2025 INSC 188. Hence, the impugned award requires suitable enhancement. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-insurance company opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant and submits that the Tribunal has passed an adequate and sufficient amount of compensation in favour of the claimant under all the heads. Counsel submits that the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant have no legal or factual basis and the same are simply based on guesswork. Counsel submits that the claimant is using an artificial leg and discharging all kinds of work. Counsel further submits that the claimant is not an agriculturist, but he is [2026:RJ-JP:6234] (4 of 10) [CMA-2473/2024] running a shop and all these facts have been established on the record when a detailed cross-examination was done with him. Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that under the head of artificial leg/limb, the claimant is not entitled to get any sort of compensation, as the same is required to be determined on the basis of the situation existing at the time of the accident. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 674. Counsel submits that a reasoned and cogent award has been passed in favour of the claimant, which does not need interference of this Court and the instant appeal is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that at the time of accident, the age of the claimant was 19 years. This fact is not in dispute that in the accident he has completely lost his right leg and the same has been amputated from the hip joint and his left leg has also been amputated from the ankle, hence, he is suffering from 85% permanent disability. 7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarnam Singh (supra) has dealt with the identical issue, where the injured had suffered 80% permanent disability, but considering the age of the injured, his 80% permanent disability was treated as 100% disability for determining the compensation awardable. [2026:RJ-JP:6234] (5 of 10) [CMA-2473/2024] This fact has been dealt in detail, by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in para No.8 to 10, which reads as under: “8. The issue required to be considered in the present appeal falls in a very narrow campus. It is with the reference to the functional disability of the appellant for the purpose of assessment of compensation. The fact remains that he suffered injuries in a road accident on account of which his right lower limb was amputated. This resulted in permanent disability. There is a certificate produced by the appellant from Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, (Government of NCT Delhi) showing his permanent physical disability at 85% with further note that the condition is not likely to improve and no further reassessment is recommended. The certificate was issued by a board of doctors on 28.03.2014. As per the photograph of the appellant appearing in the disability certificate, his right leg has been amputated above the knee. The income of the appellant, his age and other factors are not in dispute. 9. As to how compensation, in case where permanent disability of an injured affects his functional disability, is to be assessed has been considered by this Court, repeatedly. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Mohan Soni vs. Ram Avtar Tomar And Others reported in (2012) 2 SCC 267. In the aforesaid case the injured was working as a cart puller. As a result of the accident, his left leg was amputated. His permanent disability was assessed at 60%. The Tribunal assessed the compensation taking the loss of earning at 50% on the theory that he can still do some other work while sitting. The High Court did not disturb the finding regarding loss of income on account of disability. This Court found that the Tribunal was in error in taking the loss of earning at 50% as the injured was 55 years of age and it may be difficult for him to find a job at that stage. In fact, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of the work being performed by the person who suffered disability. The same injury suffered by two different persons [2026:RJ-JP:6234] (6 of 10) [CMA-2473/2024] may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or a rickshaw puller may be end of the road as far as his earning capacity is concerned. Whereas, in case of the persons engaged in some kind of desk work in office, loss of leg may have lesser effect. This Court enhanced the loss of earning capacity from 50% to 90%. 10. Applying the same principle to the case in hand, we find that the appellant herein was working as a gunman with Bharat Hotel Limited. On account of amputation of his right leg above the knee, he was terminated from service w.e.f. 31.05.2015. It is not a matter of dispute that a person with his right leg amputated cannot perform the duty of a gunman. This is his functional disability. He was 50 years & 5 months old at the time of accident. Considering the aforesaid facts, in our view, the Tribunal was right in assessing the loss of earning capacity of the appellant at 100% and assessing the compensation accordingly. The High Court was in error in reducing the loss of earning capacity to 80%, relying upon the judgment of High Court, despite there being a judgment of this Court available on the issue.” 8. In the instant case as well, the claimant has suffered 85% disability wherein his right leg has been completely amputated from the hip joint and his left leg has been amputated from the ankle and as such, he is unable to discharge the functions of a normal person. Hence, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have treated 85% disability of the claimant as 100% for the purpose of determinig the amount of compensation awardable to him. 9. This Court finds that the age of the claimant at the time of the accident was 19 years, but looking to the injuries suffered by him and looking to the amputation in both the [2026:RJ-JP:6234] (7 of 10) [CMA-2473/2024] legs, now the claimant would not be in a position to get married and he would be deprived of all the benefits of a married life. But the Tribunal has not awarded a single penny to the claimant under this head. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the claimant is entitled to a compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- under the head of loss of marital prospects. 11. This Court further finds that under the head of pain, suffering and mental agony, the Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.50,000/-, which needs to be suitably enhanced by this Court. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of pain, suffering and mental agony is enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-. 12. Once a person has lost a limb such as his leg, he is not in a position to walk and discharge his daily routine activities, hence, under these circumstances, an artificial limb/leg is required for the said purpose. However, the Tribunal has not awarded a single penny under this head. In the considered opinion of this Court, the claimant is entitled to get a lump sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of artificial leg/limb. 13. This Court finds no merits and substance in the argument of counsel for the claimant that the work of the claimant as an agriculturist should have been treated as work of a skilled labour. The work of an agriculturist falls under the category of ‘unskilled labour’ as per the notification dated 19.01.2017 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment. There is a [2026:RJ-JP:6234] (8 of 10) [CMA-2473/2024] lot of difference between a skilled and unskilled labour. A worker with specialized skills or training is a skilled labour, while a worker without any specialized skills or training is known as an unskilled labour. 14. For ready reference, the difference between a skilled and an unskilled labour is described as under: Skilled labour Unskilled labour Skilled labour refers to workers who possess specialized knowledge, training or expertise in a particular field or occupation. They have acquired skills through formal education, apprenticeship or excessive experience, making them more productive and efficient. Unskilled labour refers to workers who perform tasks that require little or no specialized knowledge, education or training. They typically engaged in manual work that does not require specific skills or expertise. 15. In the instant matter, it is the admitted case of the claimant that he was an agriculturist, hence, no specialized training was required for the purpose of discharging the work of an agriculturist. The claimant was an unskilled labour, hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error in treating the injured agriculturist-claimant as an unskilled labour and has rightly determined his monthly income as an unskilled labour. 16. With no stretch of imagination, can the job of an agriculturist be treated as skilled labour, since no qualification/training is required for the said job. This Court finds no merit and substance in the aforesaid argument raised by counsel for the claimant. [2026:RJ-JP:6234] (9 of 10) [CMA-2473/2024] 17. Now, this Court shall proceed to deal with the other submissions made by counsel for the claimant, particularly that the claimant is entitled to get compensation by determining his minimum wages for 30 days instead of 26 days in a month. This issue has already been decided by this Court in the case of Nandu Devi and Anr. Vs. Sohanlal and Ors., while deciding S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 769/2017 on 23.02.2022 after relying upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jalaur Singh and Ors. vs. Barkat Singh Ors. reported in 202(2) MACT Raj. 692, wherein it has been held that the monthly income of a daily wager is to be assessed for 30 days instead of 26 days in a month. 18. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, the claimant is entitled to get compensation in the following terms as reproduced in the table hereunder: Monthly Income (along with 40% future prospects) 207 X 30 + 207 X 30 X 40/100 6210 + 2484 = Rs. 8,694/- Annual Income 8694 X 12 = Rs. 1,04,328/- Multiplier to be applied 18 1,04,328 X 18 = Rs. 18,77,904/- Loss of Income (owing to 100% permanent disability) Rs. 18,77,904/- Treatment Expenses Rs. 25,959/- Attendant and other incidental expenses Rs. 20,800/- Future Inconvenience Rs. 3,50,000/- Pain & Suffering Rs. 2,00,000/- Loss of Marital Prospects Rs. 5,00,000/- Artificial Leg/Limb Rs. 2,00,000/- Total Compensation Awardable Rs. 31,74,663/- [2026:RJ-JP:6234] (10 of 10) [CMA-2473/2024] Less Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs. 18,05,185 Enhanced Compensation Rs. 13,69,478/- 19. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant civil misc. appeal stands disposed of and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal stands modified to the extent that the claimant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.13,69,478/- by way of enhanced compensation and the remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 20. It is further ordered that out of the enhanced compensation amount, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- be deposited in the Savings Bank Account of the claimant and the remaining amount be deposited in the fixed deposit with any Nationalized Bank initially for a period of three years and the interest accrued on the said amount shall be paid to the claimant on monthly basis. 21. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of four weeks from today with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 22. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/45