In an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the appellant's challenge. The court upheld the Tribunal's assessment of the appellant's income at Rs. 3,000 per month due to lack of evidence and found the appeal devoid of merits.
The appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2530/2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2530/2015
Khemchand-Appellant Versus
Rajesh Kumar Gurjar & Ors.-Respondents
Date of Order-::-07.09.2015
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Mr. Vinay Mathur, for appellant.
ORDER
By the Court:-
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T., Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) vide the award dated 19.03.2015 in MAC Case No.116/2013, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,08,830/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident which occurred on 21.10.2012.
2. It appears that on 21.10.2012, the claimant was going from Chandwaji towards Pilwa Bheru Baba on his motorcycle. At about 11:00 a.m., when he reached near Saladwas Government School, one dumper bearing registration No.RJ-14-2G-0675 driven by the driver of the respondent No.1 came from opposite direction and dashed with the motorcycle of the appellant, as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2530/2015
2
3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Vinay Mathur for the appellant that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective, more particularly in respect of the income of the appellant and drawn inference that the appellant must be earning rupees 3,000/- per month. According to him, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too meager as compared to his injury and income.
4. The Court does not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. As transpiring from the impugned order, the appellant had failed to produce any evidence muchless cogent evidence to show that he was doing any business or running any shop. There was also no evidence to show that the appellant was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as claimed by him. In absence of any such evidence, the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/per month. It is needless to say that the appellant-claimant has to prove his income at the time of accident by leading cogent evidence. Under the circumstances, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
5. The appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
(Bela M. Trivedi) J.
R.Vaishnav 33.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the appellant's income at Rs. 3,000 per month in the absence of cogent evidence proving higher earnings.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was too meager given the claimed income of the appellant.
Whether the appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is maintainable to seek enhancement of compensation without fresh evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Khemchand
Rajesh Kumar Gurjar & Ors.
Bela M. Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
