1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR * * * J U D G M E N T Sagat Singh and Anr. Vs. Asgar and Ors. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 192/1996 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.3.1993 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, CHURU IN CLAIM CASE NO.105/86 (SAGAT SINGH & ANR. Vs. ASGAR & ORS.) DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 23.4.2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. Manoj Bohra on behalf of Mr. K.N. Joshi, for the appellants. Mr. Jagdish Vyas, for the respondents. :::: BY THE COURT : An accident on 16.5.1986 at about 6.45 p.m. Occurred in between Jeep No. RSS-261 and a private bus bearing No. RJY-2199 being driven by respondent No.2 on Maleri Ratangarh Cross Road Choraha. The occupants of the jeep received injury, who preferred to file two sets of the claim petition one by Lt. Col. Jai Singh and Ors. 2 and second by appellants Sagat Singh and his wife. The said set was decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu on 26.3.1993, in which the appellants were awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- because of injuries, they received during accident while travelling in the jeep. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellants preferred this appeal. The respondents No.1 to 3 denied about the allegation levelled by the appellants and stated that it was the appellant, who was driving a jeep in rash and negligent manner and accident is result of the appellant's mistake. The Tribunal framed three issues. On behalf of appellant Sagat Singh and his wife Vinita appeared as witness. Two sets of petition were amalgamated and were decided by a common judgment. The common evidence was led by other petitioners including the appellant and in all five witnesses were produced, one witness was produced on behalf of the respondent. The Tribunal after evaluating and analysing the entire evidence produced in both sets, passed an award in favour of the appellants, which could not satisfy, hence, they preferred an appeal. 3 Both the parties were heard and the file was gone through. Learned counsel for the appellants pleaded that looking to the nature of injury, award given to the injured and his wife is very meager and the compensation for grievous and non- grievous injuries has not been given to the appellants which as per schedule should have been given. The expenses of jeep in getting it repaired being the accident has also not been awarded to the appellant so prayer for enhancement of award was made. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents pleaded that a simple injury as per injury report was received by the appellants from whom medical expenses and also the mental agony suffered was awarded properly because medical expenses as Rs.2,000/- and mental agony was given as Rs.3,000/- to the appellants, which is sufficient in all respect, so also the case of his wife Vinita. No interference is warranted as the Tribunal has given sufficient amount of award in comparison to the injuries and also the nature of accident. 4 The appellant himself has not submitted the claim petition for repairing of his jeep. Besides this, he has not produced any documentary evidence for repairing of his jeep. No compensation for repairing of his jeep can be awarded and the Tribunal has done right in refusing the same. The amount of award given to the appellants as Rs.5,000/- and to his wife as Rs.2,000/-. In all probability proper, reasonable and as per norms of the statutory provision because the injury report of the appellant reveals that it was a simple single injury not in the form of injury but in the form of pain which when X- Rayed was not found with bony injury. A single injury ofcourse when treated had to incurred the medical expenses of Rs.2,000/- which have been awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant. The mental agony award is Rs.3,000/- which could not satisfy the appellants, and led them to prefer this appeal for the sake of appeal. No interference is warranted in the award passed by the Tribunal. The appellant has not preferred any claim about the expenses incurred by him for repairing the jeep. As he himself has admitted in 5 the cross-examination about the fact of not filing any claim of expenses for repairing of jeep. So by not awarding the expenses of jeep repair, the Tribunal has committed no illegality. No other arguments were put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is without any force and devoid of substance, the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed. (BHANWAROO KHAN) J. RM/