[2026:RJ-JP:5481]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2873/2020 Arpit S/o Suresh, Aged 24 Years, Resident Of Kanwarpura (Chilriya), Police Station Choth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

----Claimant-Appellant Versus

1. Sheoji S/o Ladu, Resident Of Mohammad Nagar, Tonk (Raj.) (Deceased)

2. Shivraj S/o Ramphool, Resident Of 23, Mandaliya Maida, Kotkhavda, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur (Raj.)

3. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Tonk (Raj.)

----Respondents-Non-Claimants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Adv. with Mr. Avinash Dhanju, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Order

19/01/2026

1- vihykFkhZ }kjk ;g vihy /kkjk 173 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e&1988 ds rgr U;k;ky; U;k;k/kh'k] eksVj;ku nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k] Vksad ¼ftls vkxs ^fo}ku vf/kdj.k* ds uke ls lacksf/kr fd;k tk,xk½ }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k&271@2018] vfiZr cuke ';ksth o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 03-03-2020 ¼ftls vkxs ^vk{ksfir fu.kZ;^ ds uke ls lca ksf/kr fd;k tk,xk½ ds fo#) izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

2- vihykFkhZ }kjk fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds le{k] eksVj okgu nq?kZVuk esa Lo;a ds vkgr gks tkus ds QyLo:i dqy 1]76]20]000@& #i;s Dyse izkIr djus grs q Dyse ;kfpdk izLrqr dh x;h FkhA fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk mDr Dyse ;kfpdk esa ;kph dks dqy 19]05]624@& #i;s dh {kfriwfrZ jkf'k e; C;kt 7-5 izfr'kr lkykuk dh nj ls fnyokbZ x;h gSA mDr vk{ksfir fu.kZ;

ls O;fFkr gksdj gLrxr vihy] vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls {kfrifw rZ 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 gS fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZ dh ekfld vk; 5]538@& #i;s fu/kkZfjr dh tkdj =qfV dkfjr dh x;h gS] tcfd oDr ?kVuk vihykFkhZ [ksrhckMh+ dk dk;Z dj 20]000@& #i;s izfrekg vk; vftZr djrk FkkA nq?kZVuk esa vihykFkhZ ds dbZ lk/kkj.k o xaHkhj pksVsa dkfjr gqbZ gS] ftuds lkewfgd izHkko ls mlds 'kjhj ij dqy 75 izfr'kr LFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk vkuk ik;k x;k gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh lq[k&lqfo/kk dh deh rFkk 'kkjhfjd o ekufld ihMk+ dh en esa o 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

4- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ chek dEiuh dh vksj ls mijksDr rdkZsa dk fojks/k djrs gq, fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V fd;s tkus rFkk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls lafLFkr dh x;h vihy dks [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;hA

5- nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl lquh x;hA i=koyh o fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

6- ekeys dh nq?kZVuk esa vihykFkhZ dks dkfjr gqbZ pksVksa ds QyLo:i mlds 'kjhj ij dqy 75 izfr'kr LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk vkuk ik;k x;k gSA eksVj nq?kZVuk esa vkgr O;fDr;ksa dks {kfriwfrZ fnyok;s tkus ds lna HkZ 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.

esa fl)kUr reported in (2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 450, 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 o