[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-

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 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 oppo