Rakesh S/O Shri Kishor Vs Banwarilal Meena S/O Shri Ramsahai — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rakesh S/O Shri Kishor Vs Banwarilal Meena S/O Shri Ramsahai — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed; Tribunal's award dated 29.11.2018 modified by enhancing compensation to a total of Rs.13,69,601/- (adding Rs.5,00,000/- under mental agony, pain and suffering and Rs.2,25,746/- as 40% future prospects); interest @ 7.5% per annum payable on the additional enhanced amount; 50% of the enhanced amount plus interest to be kept in FDR in the claimant/appellant's name for five years and the remaining 50% disbursed to him; pending applications disposed of; Registry directed to return the record to the concerned Tribunal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, who suffered amputation of one leg in the accident, was entitled to compensation under the head of pain and suffering, none having been awarded by the Tribunal. +2 more

Court's answer

Having suffered amputation of one leg in the accident, the appellant is entitled to compensation under the head of pain and suffering for the loss of mental agony and pain caused by the injuries.

Ratio / Principle

Following this Court's decision in Jagdish v. Prithviram (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2052/1992), the present case being likewise one of amputation of one leg, the appellant is held entitled to Rs.5 lakhs under the head of mental agony, pain and suffering.

Key takeaways

On the loss-of-income component of Rs.5,64,365/- already allowed, the appellant is entitled to future prospects at 40%, i.e. Rs.2,25,746/-, consistent with National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.ratio¶39
The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award dated 29.11.2018 is modified as regards the compensation amount under various heads, taking the total compensation to Rs.13,69,601/-.ratio¶40
The appellant shall be entitled to interest on the additional enhanced amount at 7.5% per annum, as per the terms of the Tribunal's judgment; 50% of the enhanced amount plus interest is to be kept in FDR in the claimant's name for five years and the remaining 50% disbursed to him.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS — QUANTUM ENHANCEMENT — AMPUTATION OF ONE LEG — Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1876/2019 (Ganesh Ram Meena, J.; decided 01/07/2025). Claimant injured on 16.08.2016 when car RJ-14-CQ-9266 rashly/negligently hit his motorcycle RJ-29-SL-0740 near Delhi Byepass, Jaipur, suffering grievous injuries and amputation of one leg; MACT Jaipur (Case No. 491/2017, Old 799/2016) by award dated 29.11.2018 had granted Rs.6,43,855/- with 7.5% interest. Held: (i) a victim of amputation of one leg is entitled to compensation for mental agony, pain and suffering — Rs.5,00,000/- awarded, following this Court's Jagdish v. Prithviram (S.B. CMA No.2052/1992, decided 08.05.2025); (ii) 40% future prospects on the allowed loss of income of Rs.5,64,365/-, i.e. Rs.2,25,746/-, applying National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Total compensation enhanced to Rs.13,69,601/-; interest @7.5% on the enhancement; 50% of enhanced amount plus interest in five-year FDR. Appeal partly allowed.

[2025:RJ-JP:24152]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1876/2019

Rakesh S/o Shri Kishor, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Mu. Post, Aaluda, Tehsil Sikrai, Police Thana, Nangal, District Dausa, Presently R/o Bheru Colony, Jaisinghpura Khor, Delhi Bypass, Jaipur

----Claimant /Appellant

Versus

Banwarilal Meena S/o Shri Ramsahai, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Karodi, Tehisl Sikrai, District Dausa

(Driver Vehicle No. R.J.-14-CQ-9266)

Sanjay Agarwal S/o Shri Kailash Chand Agarwal, R/o C- 42, Gretar Kailash Colony, Lal Kothi Scheme, Police Thana, Jyotinagar, Jaipur

(Owner Vehicle No. R.J.-14-CQ-9266)

United India Insurance Company Limited Through Manager, Regional Office, Sahara Chambers, Lakshmi Mandir Tirahe Ke Pass, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Insurance Company Vehicle No. R.j.-14-Cq-9266)

----Non-claimants/Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Bhati

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment

01/07/2025

The claimant/appellant is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation decided by the Court of learned Special Judge, Printing & Stationary Embezzlement Cases & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Case No. 491/2017 (Old 799/2016) and therefore has preferred this appeal. By the impugned award dated 29.11.2018, the Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.6,43,855/-

[2025:RJ-JP:24152]

[CMA-1876/2019]

(2 of 5)

compensation along-with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of presentation of claim petition. The claimant/ appellant claimed compensation of Rs.32,40,000/-.

Facts borne out from the pleadings are that the claimant/appellant filed a claim case before the Claims Tribunal averring that on 16.08.2016 he along-with his friend was going from the motorcycle bearing number RJ-29-SL-0740 for darshan of Khole Ke Hanuman. When at about 5:30 PMN they reached entry gate Delhi Byepass, the driver of the car number RJ-14-CQ9266 while driving the said car rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle which resulted into fracture of his leg, nose, abdomen, eyes and knee.

Mr. Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant submits that issue No.4 has been decided by the Claims Tribunal contrary to the evidence and the facts available on the record. Counsel submits that due to the multiple fractures the complainant became 43.33% permanent disable. Counsel also submits that no compensation has been awarded to the appellant under the head of pain and suffering. Counsel submits that because of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant has suffered complete amputation of one leg and he deserves compensation towards pain and suffering head.

Counsel further submits that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation amount under the head of future prospects whereas it is a well settled law that a claimant is entitled for 40% amount under the head of future prospects.

Counsel also submits the Claims Tribunal has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishan

[2025:RJ-JP:24152]

[CMA-1876/2019]

(3 of 5)

Gopal and Another Vs. Lal & Ors., reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 for allowing compensation of Rs.6,43,855/-, however, the Claims Tribunal failed to notice the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment for choosing an appropriate multiplicand.

Mr. R.S. Bhati, counsel appearing for the respondent No.3- United India Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal and submits that the Claims Tribunal after discussing the evidence and considering the other material available on record, rightly passed by the impugned judgment and award and warrants no interference by this Court.

Considered the submissions advanced by the counsels appearing for the respective parties, perused the impugned judgment and award and gone through the entire material made available to the Court including the record of the case.

One of the submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant because of the injuries sustained the accident, has suffered amputation of one leg. As per the record the appellant sustained grievous injuries in the accident and as a result suffered amputation of one leg. In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled compensation under the head of pain and suffering as he has suffered a loss of mental agony and pain because of the injuries sustained in the accident which resulted amputation of one leg.

This Court in the case of Jagdish v. Prithviram & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2052/1992) decided on 08.05.2025 in a case of amputation of one leg has allowed the compensation in the sum of Rs.5 lakh under the head of mental

[2025:RJ-JP:24152]

[CMA-1876/2019]

(4 of 5)

agony, pain and suffering. The present case of the appellant is also a case of amputation of one leg and thus, he is held to be entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs under the head of mental agony, pain and suffering.

The another argument of the counsel appearing for the appellant is that the appellant has not been allowed any compensation towards the future prospects whereas the Hon’ble Apex Court in its various judgments including the judgment delivered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has allowed future prospects at the rate of 40%.

In the present case the appellant has been allowed compensation towards the loss of income to the tune of Rs.5,64,365/-. The appellant is entitled for 40% of the amount towards the head of future prospects which comes to Rs.2,25,746/-.

In view of the discussion made above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Printing & Stationary Embezzlement Cases & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Case No. 491/2017 (Old 799/2016) is modified as regards the compensation amount under various heads as under:-

Treatment expenses/medical bills Rs.38,400/2. Attendant during treatment Rs.9,000/3. Conveyance charges Rs.5,000/4. Special diet Rs.9,000/5. Loss of income during three months rest Rs.18,090/6. Mental agony, pain and suffering Rs.5,00,000/7. Loss of income and future prospects Rs.5,64,365 + 2,25,746 (future prospects) Rs.7,90,111/-

____________ Total compensation	____________
amount ________________	Rs.13,69,601/- ______________

[2025:RJ-JP:24152]

[CMA-1876/2019]

(5 of 5)

The appellant shall be entitled for interest on the additional enhanced amount @ 7.5% per annum as per the terms of the judgment of the Claims Tribunal.

50% of the enhanced amount + interest thereon shall

be kept in the FDR in the name of the claimant/ appellant for a period of five years and remaining 50% of the enhanced amount

interest be disbursed to the claimant/ appellant.

Pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.

The Registry is directed to send back the record of the

case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

Sharma Nk/Dy. Registrar