IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

JODHPUR

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No…………………………../2019

APELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:-
1. Pratap Singh S/o Panna Singh ,aged-50 years,
2. Lakshmi Devi W/o Pratap Singh , aged-48 years,
All by caste- Rawat, Residents of Kundeli, Tehsil- Devgarh, District
-Rajasamand (Rajasthan).
VERSUS

RESPONDENT/NON-CLAIMANTS:-
1. Bherusingh S/o Malsingh , by caste-Rawat , R/o- In front of TT college,
Meershali Ajmer, Tehsil- Ajmer , district- Ajmer(Rajasthan).
…driver of Bus No. RJ22-PA-1653
2. Rajkumar S/o Chunnilal , by caste- Prajapat, R/o- Fulad Road, Sojat Road,
Tehsil-Sojat, District-Pali. (Rajasthan).
…owner of Bus No. RJ22-PA-1653
3. United India Insurance company Ltd., Regional Office Mandiya Road , LIC
Bhawan , Pali, District-Pali. (Rajasthan).
…insurer of Bus No. RJ22-
PA-1653
(Insurance Policy No. -1407003114P104188915, Insurance Duration Date 10.09.2014
to Date 09.09.2015)
*****
 S.B CIVIL MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE
MOTOR VECHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE PASSED BY
SHRI OMPRAKASH , R.J.S., MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM
TRIBUNAL, SOJAT, DISTRICT- PALI, IN MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIM NO . 83/2015, TITLED AS LAKSHMI
DEVI &ORS. VS. BHERUSINGH & ORS. WHEREBY, THE
LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS AWARDED ONLY A SUM OF RS.
5,20,000/- AS COMPENSATION TO THE APPELLANTS /
CLAIMANTS, HENCE, THIS APPEAL FOR ENHANCEMENT
OF THE AWARD.
****

VALUATION OF APPEAL :RS.40,60,000/-

VALUATION OF CLAIM :RS.40,60,000/-
AMOUNT AWARDED :RS.5,20,000/-
COURT FEE PAID :RS. 10/- (Fixed)
*****
To,
Hon’ble Chief Justice and his other companion judges of the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
*****
On behalf of the appellants/claimants, above named, it is most humbly and
respectfully submitted as under:-
1. That the factual matrix of the case in short is that the appellants/claimants
filed a claim petition before the learned MAC Tribunal, Sojat, District –
Pali with MAC case No. 83/2015 (CSI No. 85/2015) stating therein that
on 22.05.2015 that both the appellants were travelling to Biliyas on the
Motorcycle No. RJ-30-SK-2619.Pratap Singh appellant No.1 was driving
the Motorcycle as per traffic rules and regulations and in limited speed.
 When the Motorcycle reached Surajpura NH-8, The Bus No. RJ-22-PA-
1653 was coming from behind and the bus driver who is also respondent
No.1 Bherusingh was driving the bus with very high speed, negligently
and then he rammed into the motorcycle into the motorcycle behind.
Pratap Singh and her daughter Yashoda got stuck under the bus with the
motorcycle and the wife of Pratap Singh fell at a distance. The impact of
the accident is so high that all the three appellants were seriously injured
at the spot but the daughter Yashoda succumbed to her injuries and she
died on the way towards Beawar Hospital, hence both the appellants lost
their daughter in this accident. Both the appellants Pratap Singh and
Lakshmi Devi sustained seriously injuries on various parts of their body.
The FIR of the accidental was lodged as P.S. Jawaja, Sojat FIR No.
121/2015 under section 279, 337, 304A I.P.C. also the case was
registered as per MACT Act, 1988. The Learned Tribunal passed very
less award amount. Hence, this enhancement appeal is being presented at
the Hon’ble desk.
2. The appellants filed a claim petition before the learned M.A.C Tribunal,
U/s 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and prayed to pass an award of
Rs. 40,60,000/- in favour of the appellants with interest of 18% p.a. as
compensation. The MAC No. of this case is 83/2015 (CSI NO. 85/2015).
The learned Tribunal has passed Rs. 5,20,000/- for deceased Yashoda
who died in the accident, which is very less as per the appellants. The
appellants think that the award passed by learned Tribunal is not correct
and cannot fulfill their loss, pain, agony caused after the accident for the
lifetime. As both the appellants have lost their daughter who was only 16
years old at the time of accident. Hence, this enhancement appeal is being
presented at the Hon’ble desk.
3. The claim petition states that at the time of occurrence of the accident,
the deceased Yashoda was only 16 years old before the accident was
working as laborer and used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month, which was a
great financial help for the family. Yashoda was young and energetic girl
who was very dedicated towards her work and used to take care of the
other household things and always helped her mother in her work. The
deceased Yashoda was healthy and fit before the accident and did not had
any life threatening disease which could impact her life in near future.
But after the accident the deceased Yashoda sustained internal as well as
external injuries which resulted in her death while taking towards
hospital. The appellants also stated that they have been deprived from
their daughter as she was deceased in the accident which is impacting
their affection and support and for this they will have to face the mental
agony for their whole life. The appellants mentioned their details relating
to the accident and have given all necessary documents and other details
relating to the claim petition before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
4. That the respondent/Non-claimant No.1 & 2 submitted their reply to the
claim case, in which they denied most of the averments and stated that
excessive compensation, has been claimed. Finally it was prayed to
dismiss the claim case against them.
5. That the respondent/ Non-claimant No.3 the insurance company filed its
reply in which it denied most of the averments made in the claim
application. The insurance Company stated that the alleged vehicle was
insured. While at the time of accident the motorcycle had three
passengers travelling which increases the chances of accident, therefore
the insurance company is not liable for the compensation. It was also
stated by the respondent No. 3 that the alleged vehicle was being driven
 by the person having the valid license and finally it prayed to dismiss the
claim application.
6. That the learned tribunal after considering the material available on
record with regard to the claim application U/S 166 of the Act of the
1988, vide its judgment and award dated 15.10.2018 held that the claim
case of the claimants was proved by them and the issues were partly
decided in their favour. The learned tribunal held that the claimants are
entitled to get the compensation from the respondent in different heads,
but has rewarded a meager amount as compensation.
7. Being aggrieved of the findings of the learned tribunal regarding the
quantum of the award, the appellants prefer this Civil Misc. Appeal for
enhancement of the award on the following amongst various other
grounds:-
GROUNDS
A. That the sum awarded as compensation by the learned tribunal vides its
judgment and award dated 15.10.2018, to the appellants is grossly
inadequate and thus, deserves to be enhanced suitably.
B. That the learned tribunal has committed a grave illegality while
assuming monthly income of the injured Rs. 5,122/- only. It is submitted
that the claimants have submitted that the injured was earning
Rs.10,000/- per month. Through work of contract labour at various
construction sites. But without considering the oral evidence, the
Tribunal has disbelieved the monthly income of the injured.
C. That the learned Tribunal has committed grave error of law in deciding
such a low award amount considering the fact that the appellant also lost
their daughter in this accident. A bare look at impugned judgment and
award makes it evident that the learned tribunal has cursorily proceeded
to award a meager amount towards the claim without looking into
 substantial evidences and principles of the law governing the case. The
learned tribunal has been failed to consider that there was loss of a
human being, which cannot be compensated in terms of money but look
to the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded compensation, is
very low.
D. That the learned tribunal has further committed grave illegality in
deducing certain amount for the personal expenditure of the injured. In
this respect, it is submitted here that the claim petition was filed under
section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988 and it is also not disputed fact that the
injured was having liability of total family members upon him at the
time of accident, therefore, deduction of the amount for the personal
expenditure of the injured, is on higher side, which has been resulted
into low compensation. In view of above, it is clear that the impugned
award is not in accordance with the settled principles of the law. In view
of the facts mentioned above the deduction should not have been taken
place as the injured was involved in labour work which is already very
less paid.
E. That it is worthwhile to submit here that the Motor vehicle Act is a
welfare legislation and the same has been enacted and trial of a claim
petition before the tribunal is in summary nature and whole
technicalities of the C.P.C. and Evidence Act are not applicable to the
trial of the claim petition before the tribunal, therefore if, the evidences
of the claimants has not been contradicted in any manner that the same
should have been accepted as such.
F. That the learned Tribunal has committed a grave illegality while
awarding such meager amount in the head of loss of love, affection and
support to the family of the deceased which is only Rs. 5,20,000/- to
family. As such, the learned Tribunal has considered this aspect of the
 case in a mechanical manner and has awarded such a meager amount,
which deserves to be enhanced suitably by awarding at least
Rs.40,60,000/- to the family.
G. That the appellant are now alone after the accident as they have lost their
daughter at very early age that is 16 years old. Both the appellants are
now at the edge of their old age and if their daughter was alive she
would have taken care of both the appellants in their old age. The
learned Tribunal has not considered the major facts that the love and
affection loss is very high. The injuries sustained to the appellants will
impact in their old age hence, the future prospectus of the medical health
treatment is also not considered by the learned Tribunal. Hence this
enhancement has been filed at the Hon’ble desk.
H. That the interest has also been awarded at very much lower rate of 8%
p.a., which ought to have been at least at the 18% p.a.
I. That the other grounds would be submitted at the time of arguments
with kind permission of the Hon’ble Court.

PRAYER

It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal may
kindly be allowed and the judgment and award dated 15.10.2018 passed
by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sojat, District-Pali in
claim case no. 83/2015 (CSI No. 85/2015) may kindly be modified the
award enhanced to the amount as claimed in the claim application i.e., to
Rs. 40,60,000/-.
 Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble
Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case may be passed in favour
of the appellants.

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

[ RAVI PANWAR]
R.No.- 2913/2008

Notes:
1- No such Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed previously before
this Hon’ble High court and Hon’ble Supreme court.
2- PF, notices and extra sets shall be filed within prescribed
period.
3- Typed by my private steno in my office.
4- Typed on these stout papers as pie papers are not readily
available.
5- Case pertains to Jodhpur Jurisdiction.
6- Mobile No. of the Counsel 9414341486.
7- Email Id of the Counsel adv.ravipanwar@gmail.com .

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

[ RAVI PANWAR]
R.No.- 2913/2008
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No…………………………../2019

APPELLANTS V/S. RESPONDENTS

PRATAP SINGH & ORS. BHERUSINGH& ORS.

INDEX

S.No. Particulars Page No.

1. Memo of Appeal

2. Certified Copy of Judgment Dated 15.10.2018

HUMBLE APPELLANTS
THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No…………………………../2019

APPELLANTS V/S. RESPONDENTS

PRATAP SINGH & ORS. BHERUSINGH& ORS.

LIST OF DATES & EVENTS

On dated 22.05.2015 at 6 PM, Pratap Singh was driving the

motorcycle as per traffic rules and regulations and in limited speed. When the
motorcycle reached Surajpura NH-8, The Bus No. RJ-22-PA-1653 was coming
from behind and the bus driver who is also respondent No.1 Bherusingh was
driving the bus with very high speed, negligently and then he rammed into the
motorcycle into the motorcycle behind. Pratap Singh and her daughter Yashoda got
stuck under the bus with the motorcycle and the wife of Pratap Singh fell at a
distance. The impact of the accident is so high that all the three appellants were
seriously injured at the spot but the daughter Yashoda succumbed to her injuries
and she died on the way towards Beawar Hospital, hence both the appellants lost
their daughter in this accident. Both the appellants Pratap Singh and Lakshmi Devi
sustained seriously injuries on various parts of their body. .

The appellants filed a claim petition before the learned M.A.C Tribunal , Sojat
district Pali, U/s 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 and prayed to pass an
award of Rs. 40,60,000/- in favour of the appellants with interest of 18% p.a. as
compensation.
Respondent insurance company appeared before the learned Tribunal submitted
reply, in which it was stated that entire claim was based on a concocted story.
On 15.10.2018, the learned Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 5,20,000/- against the
respondents with interest @ 8% to be paid from the date of filling of the
application.

Hence, the present Appeal is being filed for enhancement of the award.

HUMBLE APPELLANTS
THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL