##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:7559]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 527/2000

eqjkjhyky Hkkyk iq= Jh txnh'k ukjk;.k] vk;q 38 o"kZ] fuoklh ,e&28]

egs'k dkyksuh] Vksad jksM+] t;iqj

vihykFkhZ

----

Versus

Jh cyjke iq= Jh izgykn eh.kk] fuoklh VsVjk] ftyk eqjSuk]

1.

e/;izns'kA

Jh lrh'k dqekj ds'kksV iq= Jh vkuUn fd'kksj gky fuoklh

2.

dYiuk VªsoYl izk-fy- uothou dkWEiysDl] LVs'ku jksM+] t;iqjA

us'kuy bU';ksjsUl dEiuh fy0 'kk[kk ,e-vkbZ-jksM+] t;iqj tfj;s

3.

e.Myh; izcU/kdA

izfroknhx.k

----

For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.N. Tiwari, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed, Adv.

Mr. Deepak Kumar Meena, Adv. for

Mr. Ashok Kumar Pareek, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Judgment

31/01/2026

1- vihykFkhZ }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 ,oe~ jktLFkku

jkT; lgdkjh U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj ¼ftls vkxs ^fo}ku vf/kdj.k* ds uke

ls lacksf/kr fd;k tk,xk½ }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk l[a ;k&1864@1997] eqjkjh

yky cuke cyjke o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukda 25-02-2000 ¼ftls vkxs

^vk{ksfir fu.kZ;^ ds uke ls lacksf/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 9]80]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 1]85]180@& #i;s dh {kfriwfrZ jkf'k e; C;kt

(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 01:03:52 PM)

(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 10:04:42 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:7559] (2 of 7) [CMA-527/2000]

12 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 {kfriwfrZ 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 dksbZ vk; fu/kkZfjr ugha dj ,deq'r {kfriwfrZ

jkf'k fnyokbZ tkdj =qfV dkfjr dh x;h gS] tcfd oDr ?kVuk vihykFkhZ

VªkUliksVZ dk dk;Z dj 7]000@& #i;s izfrekg vk; vftZr djrk FkkA

nq?kZVuk esa vihykFkhZ ds iSj esa vfLHkHkax rFkk vU; lk/kkj.k o xaHkhj pksVsa

dkfjr gqbZ gS] ftuds lkewfgd izHkko ls mlds 'kjhj ij dqy 47-80 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 ds en esa 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 dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

6- ekeys dh nq?kZVuk esa vihykFkhZ dks dkfjr gqbZ pksVksa ds QyLo:i

mlds 'kjhj ij dqy 47-80 izfr'kr LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk vkuk ik;k x;k gS]

tSlk fd LFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk izek.k i= izn'kZ&59 ds voyksdu ls Li"V 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 %&

(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 01:03:52 PM)

(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 10:04:42 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:7559] (3 of 7) [CMA-527/2000]

“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

compe