[2026:RJ-JP:5956]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1928/2018 Jitendra Agarwal @ Rahul S/o Shri Satish Agarwal, R/o Nawab Gali, Mathura Gate, Bharatpur Raj ----Appellant Versus

1. Gokul S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, R/o Village Bharampur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur Owner And Driver Of Tata Ej No. Rj 05/ga/8820

2. National Insurance Company, New Mandi, Bharatpur, Through Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. New Mandi, Bharatpur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr.J.K. Moolchandani For Respondent(s) : Mr.Paveen Kumar Jain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

09/02/2026

1. By way of filing the instant appeal, seeking enhancement of the award dated 06.01.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.216/2016 by which the claim petition submitted by the claimant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”) has been partly allowed and the insurance company has been directed to pay amount of compensation to the claimant along-

with interest.

2. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant met with an accident on 28.04.2012 wherein he suffered a fracture in his right shoulder, right hand and several other injuries in various parts of his body. Resultantly, a steel rod was implanted in the claimant and he sustained 70% permanent disability. Counsel submits that without any basis, the Tribunal reduced the 70% permanent disability to 50% for the purpose of grant of compensation. Counsel further submits that the claimant was working as a mobile repair mechanic, which falls under the category of highly skilled labour, but the work of the claimant was treated as mechanical and the Tribunal has treated him as only skilled labour and not highly skilled labour. Counsel further submits that under the head of future prospects, not a single penny has been awarded by the Tribunal and the wages of the daily wager is required to be determined for 30 days instead of 26 days in a month. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned award needs suitable enhancement.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-insurance company opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant and submits that since the claimant has not suffered any permanent disability of the whole body, rather he has fractured only one hand, hence, under these circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any error in reducing the 70% permanent disability to 50% permanent disability for the purpose of grant of compensation. Counsel submits that an adequate amount of compensation has already been awarded to the claimant, hence, under these circumstances, the impugned award does not need any further modification and the instant appeal is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that as per the case of the claimant, he was working as a mobile repair mechanic. This Court finds no substance in the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant that the work of a mobile repair mechanic falls under the category of highly skilled daily wager. Rather, as per the notification bearing No. S.O. 186(E) of the Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 19.01.2017 published in the Gazette of India, the work of a mechanic falls within the category of skilled labour. Hence, under these circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any error by treating the work of the claimant as the work of a mechanic and holding that the same falls within the category of skilled labour and accordingly, his loss of income has been correctly determined by the Tribunal.

6. So far as the other argument with regard to reducing the 70% permanent disability to 50% permanent disability is concerned, looking to the injury suffered by the claimant and the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, the claimant has suffered this