[2026:RJ-JP:7307]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 526/2022 Mumtaj Bano W/o Akram Ali, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Shahpura, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt. Jiapur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager Divisional Office 2Nd, Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur (Raj.) Insurer Of Jeep No. Rj-14-Ta-5956, Validity Date 11.02.22010 To 10.02.2011, Beema Cover No. Jaipur R.o./2K9/816816.

2. Ramnarayan S/o Shri Bodi Lal, R/o Rampura, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt Jaipur (Raj.)

(Driver Jeep No. Rj-14-Ta-5956)

3. Mahendra Singh Palsania S/o Shri Murlidhar Palsania, R/o Peerawali Chimanpura, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)

(Owner Jeep No. Rj-14-Ta-5956)

4. Rajendra Kumar Sherawat S/o Shri Kajod Mal, R/o Nathawala, P.s. Shahpura, Distt Jaipur (Mukhatyaraam And 133 M.v. Act, Notice Holder Of Jeep No. Rj-14-

Ta-5956)

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

Order

16/02/2026

1. The instant civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 22.01.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.111/2011 by which the claim petition submitted by the claimant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”) has been partly allowed and the respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,21,827/- to the claimant along-with interest.

2. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant met with an accident on 07.12.2010 while returning from Jaipur and the accident was caused by the driver of Vehicle No.RJ-14- TA-5956 by driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Counsel further submits that at the time of accident the age of the claimant was 28 years and she was engaged for the work of milk vending and tailoring and due to the said accident she has sustained 15 per cent permanent disability, as she sustained some injuries on both of her legs. Counsel submits that while passing the impugned award, a lump sum amount of Rs.60,000/- has been awarded for permanent disability, which should rather been awarded considering the overall permanent disability suffered by the claimant. Counsel further submits that while assessing the income of the claimant, she was treated as an unskilled labour i.e. daily wager and her income has been assessed for 26 days in a month. Counsel submits that the same should have been considered for 30 days instead of 26 days in a month as per the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Nandu Devi & Anr. Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors., while deciding S.B.

Civil Misc. Appeal No.769/2017 on 23.02.2022.

3. Counsel further submits that under the head of future prospects, not a single penny has been awarded in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.

reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant and submits that that under all the heads, a suitable amount of compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal while passing the cogent and justified judgment, which needs no interference of this Court and the appeal is liable to be rejected.

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

6. This fact is not in dispute that in the aforesaid accident, the claimant has suffered injuries on both of her legs, which has resulted in 15 per cent of permanent disability and a certificate in this regard has been issued by the Members of Medical Board, which cannot be doubted. This fact is also not in dispute that the claimant was engaged in the work of milk vending and tailoring at the time of accident and because