Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Mamta Meena vs Aman Kumar Dharwal And Others on 11 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:10033]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2909/2015
Mamta Meena wife of Shri Kamlesh Meena, aged 31 years,
resident of Village Etawa, Post Jaounla, Police Station Chauth Ka
Barwara, Tehsil & District Sawai Madhopur. At present resident of
House No.175/97, Sector 17, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.
----Appellant-Claimant
Versus
1. Aman Kumar Dharwal son of Rajendra Prasad, resident of G-
14, Ward No.67, Shastri Nagar, MSS Colony, Jaipur (Driver) Car
No.RJ-14-TA-2859
2. Lalit Waswani son of Boolchand Waswani, Resident of Plot
No.247, Kalidas Marg, Banipark, Jaipur (Registered Owner (Car
No.RJ-14-TA-2859)
3. Ashok Kumar Sharma son of Late Shri Giriraj Prasad, resident
of House No.51/335, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur at present
resident of 48-B, Savitri Vihar, Near Pannadhai Circle, Pratap
Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Power of Attorney Holder of Car No.RJ-
14-TA-2859).
4. New India Assaurance Company Limited, having its regional
office at Nehru Palace Tonk Road, Jaipur through its Regional
Manager (Insurance Company of Car No.RJ-14-TA-2859)
----Respondents-Non-claimants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain with
Mr. Shrikant Saini
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR
JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :: 28/02/2025
JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 11/03/2025
1. The instant civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by
the appellant-claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 20.03.2015 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in claim
case No. 280/2014 (2266/2011) titled as Smt. Mamta Meena vs.
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:12:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10033] (2 of 6) [CMA-2909/2015]
Aman Kumar Dharwal and ors. whereby the learned Tribunal has
awarded compensation of Rs. 53,592/- in favour of appellant-
claimant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
application till the date of realisation.
2. Necessary facts of the case are that on 16.09.2011 injured
Mamta Meena along with her husband and children were going on
motor cycle No.AP-31-AJ-1342 towards their residence at Pratap
Nagar. At about 9.00 PM near Bambala bridge, Tonk Road, a Car
bearing Registration No. RJ-14-TA-2859 came from backside in
rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle. Due to the
said accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries. Hence claim
petition.
3. Notices were served to the respondents. However, on behalf of
respondents No. 1 to No.3 no one appeared nor any written
statement was filed. Therefore, learned Tribunal proceeded ex
parte. Respondent No.4-Insurance Company of the offending
vehicle appeared and filed the written statement disputing all the
averments made in the claim petition. It is averred that according
to the terms of the policy the vehicle owner did not provide
information about the accident as per the Rules and at the time of
the accident the vehicle Driver was not having a valid and
effective driving license to drive the said vehicle. It is further
averred that it is necessary to have a valid and effective permit
and fitness certificate for the operation of a commercial vehicle,
whereas the vehicle was being used without a valid and effective
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:12:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10033] (3 of 6) [CMA-2909/2015]
permit and fitness document etc. therefore the petition of the
claimant may be dismissed.
4. The Tribunal has framed four issues for consideration. Before
the Tribunal, the claimant examined AW.1 Kamlesh Meena and
herself as AW.2 and produced documentary evidence Ex.1 to
Ex.67. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the
respondents.
5. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced by
the claimant, the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.53,592/- along with interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award dated 20.03.2015, the present appeal has
been filed by the appellant-claimant.
7. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that
though claimant is a housewife but from tutions, she was earning
Rs.5,000/- per month. That fact was not controverted by the
Insurance Company by leading any evidence, therefore, the
learned Tribunal in absence of any counter evidence assessed a
meager amount. The learned Tribunal has not followed the
principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, therefore, the
appellant-claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation.
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:12:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10033] (4 of 6) [CMA-2909/2015]
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company has submitted that the appellant is not entitled for
enhancement in compensation since the learned Tribunal after
considering all the factual aspects of the matter awarded a just
and reasonable compensation.
10. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival
contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully.
11. The manner in which the accident occurred is not disputed.
This appeal has been filed only questioning quantum of
compensation, hence there is no need for any discussion on the
question of negligence.
12. At the time of accident, age of injured Mamta being 27
years was not disputed.
13. The learned Tribunal after elaborately discussing the factual
aspects awarded a sum of Rs. 53,592/- along with interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date
of realisation.
14. The Tribunal ought to have followed the judgments of
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in:-
(i) (2017) 16 SCC 680, National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others
(ii) (2018) 18 SCC 130 Magma General Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors.
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:12:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10033] (5 of 6) [CMA-2909/2015]
However, without following the guidelines issued in the said
judgments, the Tribunal mechanically awarded compensation
which is not permissible.
15. Learned Tribunal has awarded very meager amount of
compensation under different heads though the contribution of a
housewife in a family is invaluable and cannot be equated with
any wages but in absence of alleged proof of income, her direct
and indirect monthly income, in no circumstances, could be less
than the minimum wages admissible to a skilled labourer
prevailing at the time of the accident, therefore, considering the
month of 30 days, monthly income of injured @ 155/- per day
comes to Rs. 4650/- adding its 40% i.e. Rs.1860/- towards future
prospects in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in
Pranay Sethi (supra), thereby monthly income of the injured
would come to Rs.6510/- per month. Since the injured suffered
partial disability of 11.50%, therefore, reckoning 8% as whole
body disability, her monthly income comes to Rs.521/- and loss of
earning capacity, using multiplier of 17 as per determined age
comes to Rs.521X17X12=1,06,284/-.
16. In addition, the injured is also entitled for medical bill of
Rs.13,592/-, for pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/- and for six days’
admission in hospital Rs. 3,600/-. Accordingly, the compensation
amount is re-assessed as 1,48,476/-.
17. The appellant-claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.
1,48,476/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till the date of realisation.
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:12:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10033] (6 of 6) [CMA-2909/2015]
18. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment
and award passed by learned Tribunal is modified to the above
extent.
19. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the modified /enhanced award of amount before the
learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made,
the appellant-claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire
modified/ enhanced award with accrued interest in proportion as
determined in the original award passed by the learned Tribunal,
after deducting the amount already withdrawn, if any, on making
appropriate and necessary application before the Tribunal. The
appellant-claimant shall not be entitled to any interest for the
period of delay in filing the appeal, if any. The Tribunal shall
disburse the enhanced amount upon production of certified copy
of this judgment.
20. The appeal is partly allowed.
(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J
BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /114
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:12:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)