Dismissed

R S R T C v. Sanjay Jangid and Anr.

Rajasthan HC15 Feb 2024CMA/2034/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In connected civil miscellaneous appeals, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the claimant's appeal for enhanced compensation and the RSRTC's appeal challenging the Tribunal's award, finding both appeals devoid of merit as the claimant failed to prove income.

What did the court decide?

Both S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeals No. 2573/2018 and 2034/2018 are allowed in so far as they sought reversal of the lower order, but the judgment orders that the new appeals be dismissed accordingl

R S R T C Vs Sanjay Jangid and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:7711]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2573/2018

¶4

Sanjay Jangid S/o Shri Sitaram Jangid, R/o Plot No. 3/243, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur Raj

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Ram Jat S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, R/o Village Panlawa, Tehsil Laxmangrh, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar Driver Roadways Bus No. Rj 14 Pa 0102

¶8

Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation, Head Office At Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Managind Director Registered Owner Roadways Bus No. Rj 14 Pa 0102

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2034/2018

¶12

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Managing Director Registered Owner Vehicle Roadways Bus No. Rj 14 Pa 0102

¶13

----Appellant

¶14

Versus

¶15

Sanjay Jangid S/o Sh. Sitaram Jangid, R/o Plot No. 3/243, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur Raj

¶16

Shri Ram Jat S/o Sh. Rameshwar Lal, R/o Panlaava, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Police Station Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar Raj Driver Vehicle Roadways Bus No. Rj 14 Pa 0102

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur, Adv. for claimant For Respondent(s) : Mr. V. P. Mathur, Adv. for RSRTC

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶20

Judgment

¶21

DATE OF JUDGMENT 15/02/2024

[2024:RJ-JP:7711]

[CMA-2573/2018]

(2 of 3)

The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dated 08.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.1109/2013 titled as “Sanjay Jangid Vs. Shri Ram Jat & Anr.”, whereby the Tribunal while allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 12.11.2013 as compensation in favour of the claimant-appellant (for short’ the claimant’).

¶26

CMA No.2573/2018 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas CMA No.2034/2018 has been filed by the appellant-RSRTC (for short ‘the RSRTC’) challenging the judgment & award passed by the Tribunal on the various grounds.

¶27

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2573/2018 -Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal had erred in awarding Rs.45,000/- for mental agony, physical pain, sufferings and loss of amenities, Rs.25,000/- for problem being faced in performing daily routine work on account of the injuries, Rs.49,500/- for medical bills and Rs.8,500/- for nutritional diet during hospitalization and expenses incurred on attendant. Learned counsel for the claimant also submits that claimant sustained grievous injuries and head fracture and was operated in different hospitals. As per disability certificate (Ex.19), claimant suffered 19% permanent disability. So, income of the claimant be calculated as Rs.5,000/- per month and should be awarded compensation viz-a-viz the permanent disability. Learned counsel for the claimant also submits that the Tribunal had not granted

[2024:RJ-JP:7711]

[CMA-2573/2018]

(3 of 3)

any amount towards the future treatments. So, award of the Tribunal be modified.

¶32

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2034/2018 -Learned counsel for the RSRTC submits that the Tribunal wrongly decided issue No.1 against the RSRTC. Accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that claimant had not proved the disability certificate (Ex.19) by adducing evidence of doctor. So, judgment of the Tribunal granting Rs.45,000/- for mental agony, physical pain, sufferings and loss of amenities, Rs.25,000/- for problem being faced in performing daily routine work on account of the injuries be set aside.

¶33

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimant as well as learned counsel for the RSRTC.

¶34

It is an admitted position that the claimant had not adduced any cogent evidence regarding income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal rightly allowed Rs.45,000/- for mental agony, physical pain, sufferings and loss of amenities, Rs.25,000/- for problem being faced in performing daily routine work on account of the injuries, Rs.49,500/- for medical bills and Rs.8,500/- for nutritional diet during hospitalization and expenses incurred on attendant. So, in my considered opinion, both the appeals being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly.

¶35

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.

¶36

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶37

Jatin /182-183

R S R T C v. Sanjay Jangid and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R S R T C v. Sanjay Jangid and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Deepika Ramawat W/O Late Shri Umesh Kumar Ramawat

Budhi Ram Son of Shri Ballo Ram Vs Ramji Lal S/O Ram Charan

Alwar Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Vs Badri Prasad (Deceased) S/O Suwalal

Pankaj Sharma S/O Shri Omkar Nath Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shishupal S/O Mansingh Jat Vs Murari S/O Ramswaroop

Govind S/O Chetram Vs State of Rajasthan