[2026:RJ-JP:8239]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 492/2010 Om Singh S/o Kishan Singh, Aged about 36 years, R/o G-13, Mazdoor Nagar, Infront of Gurudwara, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

----Appellant Versus

1.Raman Kumar S/o Sh. Bishan Das, Aged about 23 years, R/o Dihani, Post-Sambha, Distt. Jammu.

At present-Sep. No. 2699569 L-12 Grenadiers C/O 56 A.P.O.

Jaipur.

(Driver of the Vehicle-03 C-068274 w)

2. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Ratan Chand, Aged about 50 years, R/o Gumbhar, Police Station-Jawaljee, Himachal Pradesh.

At present-J.C.O. Subedar No. J.C.449105 K-12 Grenadiers A-

Company C/O 56 A.P.O. Jaipur.

(Owner of the Vehicle-03C-068274w)

3. Union of India, through S.S. Thakur C.C.O. Headquarter, Colonel Adjutent Radsigence and Vigilance General Officer Commanding in Chief South Western Command, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shruti Pareek JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Judgment

23/02/2026

1. The instant civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 29.01.2009, passed in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” 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.1,10,000/- to the claimant along-with interest at the rate 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same, the claimant has approved this Court by way of filing this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant met with an accident on 12.11.2006 and the accident was caused by the driver of the Army Truck bearing No. 03C-068274W and the driver was working under the employment and for the benefit of the army and therefore the claim petition was submitted against the Union of India. Counsel further submits that in the aforesaid accident the claimant has suffered 13% permanent disability and at the time of accident he was working at a kite manufacturing shop wherein he was earning an income of Rs.6000/- per month, however, without any basis the Tribunal has assessed his monthly income as Rs.2,000/- per month. Counsel submits that in support of his contentions, the owner of the kite manufacturing shop was also examined in the witness box and his evidence has not been rebutted by the respondents. In alternative, he also argued that even looking to the work of the claimant, his income should have been considered at least Rs. 100/- per day. Counsel further submits that in the claim petition, the age of the claimant was mentioned as 34 years but without any basis the same has been determined by the Tribunal in between the age group of 40-45 years. Counsel submits that looking to the age of the claimant, i.e., 34 years, the multiplier of 16 should have been applied but in the instant case, by treating the age of the claimant in between the age group of 40-45 years, the multiplier of 15 has been applied.

3. Counsel further submits that under the head of future prospects, not a single penny has been awarded and under the head of pain and suffering, a petty amount of Rs. 38,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, under these circumstances the impugned award needs suitable enhancement.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that no documentary evidence has been produced on record to show that the claimant was earning a salary of Rs.6000/- per month. Counsel submits that that the Tribunal has assessed the income and age of the deceased as per the material available on its record. Hence, under all the heads, a suitable amount of compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal while passing the