[2026:RJ-JP:2560]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4298/2012 Har Sahai Meena S/o Govind Ram Ji Meena, Aged 29 years, R/o Meena ki Dhani, Basdi Khurd, Thana Rainwal, District Jaipur.

----Appellant Versus

1. Banwari Lal S/o Ram Singh, R/o Manak Sas, Thana Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu. (Driver)

2. Rajeev Sangar S/o Dharampal, R/o Plot No.19, Shiv Vatika, Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. (Owner)

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited having its Regional office at Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur through its Regional Manager.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Salecha, Adv. (For Insurance Company)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Order

09/01/2026

1- vihykFkhZ gjlgk; eh.kk }kjk ;g vihy /kkjk 173 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e&1988 ds rgr U;k;ky; eksVj nq?kZVuk nkok U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj 'kgj] t;iqj ¼ftls vkxs ^fo}ku vf/kdj.k* ds uke ls lca ksf/kr fd;k tk,xk½ }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k&1142@2008] gjlgk; eh.kk cuke cuokjh yky o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 17-04-2012 ds fo#) izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

2- vihykFkhZ gjlgk; eh.kk }kjk fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds le{k] Lo;a ds eksVj okgu nq?kZVuk esa vkgr gks tkus ds QyLo:i dqy 17]30]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 vihykFkhZ dks dqy 6]08]000@& #i;s dh {kfriwfrZ jkf’k e; C;kt 6 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 grs q izLrqr dh x;h gSA

3- nkSjkus cgl fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk rdZ jgk fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk oDr ?kVuk vihykFkhZ dh ekfld vk; 3]000@& :Ik;s fu/kkZfjr dh tkdj =qfV dkfjr dh gS] tcfd vihykFkhZ oDr ?kVuk V~;w'ku dk;Z dj 4]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 vihykFkhZ dks Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh vk; o`f) ckcr 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 ihMk+ 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

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 fd;s x;s fu.kZ; dh iqf"V fd;s tkus rFkk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls lfa LFkr 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 90 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 tru