[2026:RJ-JP:6716]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1670/2016 Ramanand Alias Mukesh S/o Kailashchand, Resident of Fatehpura Khurd, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur ----Appellant Versus

1. Babu Lal Yadav S/o Banshidhar Yadav, Resident of Fatehpura Khurd, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Driver)

2. (a) Rudaram S/o Seduram Yadav, Resident of Khelna, Tehsil Kotputli, Post Thana Pragpura, District Jaipur.

2. (b) Manglaram S/o Sedu Ram, Resident of Khelna, Police Thana Pragpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur

2. (c) Prahlad Son of Nanuram, resident of Panchpahadi, Police Thana, Pragpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur

3. United India Insurance Company Limited through Zonal Manager, Zonal Office Second, 20, Mohan House, Transport Nagar, Jaipur (Insurance Company)

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishipal Agarwal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

12/02/2026

1. By way of filing the present appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 11.02.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by which the claim petition submitted by the claimant-appellant (for short, ‘the claimant’) has been partly allowed and a compensation of Rs. 1,93,560/- has been awarded to the claimant.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same, the instant appeal has been preferred before this Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

3. Counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant met with an accident on 21.11.2009 while he was walking on a road and the driver of the truck bearing No. RJ32-R-1257 caused the accident by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which the claimant has suffered injuries on various parts of his body. Counsel further submits that the claimant has suffered 18.05% permanent disability. Counsel submits that while passing the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has not taken into count the age of the claimant, which was 18 years at the time of accident and the theory of multiplier has not been applied. Counsel further submits that under the head of pain, suffering and mental agony, a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. Counsel submits that similarly, not a single penny has been awarded under the head of future prospects in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017(16) SCC 680, hence under these circumstances, the impugned award needs to be suitably enhanced.

4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant and submitted that while assessing the income of the claimant, exorbitant compensation has been awarded in favour of the claimant. Counsel submits that as per the circular/notification issued by the Department of Labour, Government of Rajasthan, per day wages of unskilled labour was Rs. 100/- at the relevant time but the same has been determined as Rs. 145/- per day without any basis. Counsel submits that the income of the claimant should have been determined on the basis of the circular which was prevailing at the relevant time, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted for the said purpose and the impugned award shall not be disturbed by way of enhancement under the other heads.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the record indicates that at the time of accident, the age of the appellant was 18 years and he suffered injuries on various parts of his body. He suffered 18.05% permanent disability but while passing the impugned award, the Tribunal has failed to apply the theory of multiplier. In the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009(6)