##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:17769]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2320/2024

Vikram Sharma S/o Bhimraj Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Kumarow Ka Jaw, Behind College, Falna, District Pali, At Present

9/627 Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.

----Appellant Versus

1. Ashok Choudhary S/o Himtaram Choudhary, R/o Jyoti Nagar, Chandana Bhakar, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur, Police

Thana Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur (Driver Of Vehicle)

2. Valaram S/o Shri Achlaram, R/o Jai Malanai Sarano Ka Tala, Tehsil Sinhari, District Barmer. (Owner Of Vehicle)

3. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-08 E.p.i.p, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur (Insurance

Company)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, appellant in person

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Singhal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

23/03/2026

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 02.05.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jodhpur Metropolitan in MACT Case No. 205/2021, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,30,581/- with interest

at 6% per annum from 21.07.2020.

2. Briefly stated, on 03.04.2019 at about 10.00 p.m., the appellant, a practising advocate, was riding his motorcycle bearing

(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:36:50 PM)

(Downloaded on 03/05/2026 at 01:04:26 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:17769] (2 of 9) [CMA-2320/2024] No. RJ-27-SL-6419 when a Bolero Camper bearing No. RJ-23-JB- 0325, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, hit the motorcycle from behind near Police Station Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur. The appellant sustained multiple injuries and remained admitted at AIIMS, Jodhpur from 04.04.2019 to 17.04.2019 (13 days), where he underwent surgical treatment. A duly constituted

Medical Board assessed his permanent disability at 76%.

3. The appellant who was only 34 years old, filed a claim petition, claiming a total compensation of Rs.1,65,16,540/- from the respondents-non-claimants jointly and severally. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. After conclusion of trial, the tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,30,581/- as compensation under various heads along with interest @ 6% per

annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 21.07.2020.

4. The findings of the Tribunal with respect to negligence, ownership and liability are not under challenge. The present

appeal is confined only to the quantum of compensation.

5. Appellant present in person contends that the Tribunal has awarded grossly inadequate compensation by ignoring material evidence and settled legal principles governing assessment of compensation, particularly in relation to permanent disability and

its effect on earning capacity.

6. It is submitted that the Tribunal erroneously disregarded uncontroverted evidence relating to loss of income, permanent disability, medical treatment and allied expenses, including a valid

disability certificate issued by a competent Medical Board.

(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:36:50 PM)

(Downloaded on 03/05/2026 at 01:04:26 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:17769] (3 of 9) [CMA-2320/2024] 7. It is further submitted that the Tribunal gravely erred in concluding that the appellant’s 76% permanent disability had no bearing on his earning capacity, despite its evident impact on his professional work as an advocate. The Tribunal failed to apply settled principles of law concerning assessment of disability, loss of future income and non-pecuniary damages, and unjustifiably denied compensation under various heads, including loss of hospitalization expenses including attendant charges, nourishing died and loss of estate. The appellant, therefore, prays that the compensation be suitably enhanced and modified in accordance

with established legal principles.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–Insurance Company, while supporting the impugned award, submits t