Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 899 (RAJ)

Shambhu v. Nathu Lal

2006-03-21

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2006
Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-Having sustained 35% permanent disability, but being given a compensation of Rs. 77,710/-, the appellant-claimant has filed this appeal for enhancing the award dated 012.2004 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & (Essential Commodity Act), Jaipur. 2. According to the appellant, at the time of accident he was 20 years of old and was working as a rickshaw puller. On 12.06.2001 while the appellant was driving his rickshaw trolley, a truck, bearing Registration No. RSG-1829, being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the appellant’s rickshaw. As a result of the said accident, the appellant’s tibia of right leg was badly fractured. The heel of his foot was pulverized and his ankle lost its movement. According to the Medical Board, the appellant suffered 35% permanent disability. Consequently, the appellant filed a claim petition against the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the said truck. In order to prove his case, the appellant examined himself and another witness and submitted 120 documents. The Insurance Company did not examine any witness. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal was pleased to award a compensation as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal before us. 3. Mr. Ram Singh Rathore, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has argued that a young man of 20 years old has sustained a permanent disability of 35%. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, as per the Item 5 of the Schedule-II attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as “the Act” for short), a formula has been prescribed for calculating the compensation in case of non-fatal accidents. According to learned Counsel, the learned Tribunal has failed to apply the said formula. Therefore, it has failed to apply the provisions of law. 4. On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Bhati, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has stated that the claim petition was not filed under Section 163-A of the Act, but was filed under Section 166. Therefore, the Schedule-II of the Act cannot be applied in this case. 5. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned award. 6. Admittedly, the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act and not under Section 163-A of the Act. However, according to Section 168 of the Act, the compensation has to be just and reasonable. 5. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned award. 6. Admittedly, the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act and not under Section 163-A of the Act. However, according to Section 168 of the Act, the compensation has to be just and reasonable. In order to award a just and reasonable compensation, the Schedule-II of the Act can be treated as a guideline. Item 4 of the Schedule II of the Act lays down the general damages in case of injuries and disabilities. Item 5 of the Schedule II of the Act prescribes the mode of calculating the compensation in case of disability in non-fatal accidents. Sub-item (a) of Item 5 of the Schedule II of the Act prescribes that “in case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation”. Further, Sub-item (b) of Item 5 of the Schedule II of the Act states that “in case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under Item (a) above”. In the present case, the appellant has suffered a permanent disability of 35% in a non-fatal accident. Thus, the case would be covered by Sub-item (b) of Item 5 of the Schedule II of the Act. The learned Tribunal has taken his income to be Rs. 200-250 per day as a rickshaw puller. Therefore, his monthly income was taken to be Rs. 4,000/-. Considering the fact that the appellant was a 20 years old man at the time of accident, a multiplier of 17 should be applied. Therefore, taking the formula as prescribed in Sub-item (b) of the Item 5 of the Act, the annual income of the appeal is Rs. 4,000/- x 17 = Rs. 8,16,000/-. Taking 35% of the said amount, the compensation amount comes out to Rs. 2,85,600 /-. Thus, according to the statute itself , an award of Rs. 2,85,600/-would be just and reasonable. 7. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The award amount of Rs. 77,710/-is enhanced to sum of Rs. 2,85,600/-. 4,000/- x 17 = Rs. 8,16,000/-. Taking 35% of the said amount, the compensation amount comes out to Rs. 2,85,600 /-. Thus, according to the statute itself , an award of Rs. 2,85,600/-would be just and reasonable. 7. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The award amount of Rs. 77,710/-is enhanced to sum of Rs. 2,85,600/-. Deducting the amount already paid from the enhanced amount, the remaining part of the enhanced amount shall be deposited by the United Indian Insurance Company Ltd., Respondent No. 3, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Essential Commodities), Jaipur within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this Judgment . The learned Tribunal shall disburse the same to the claimant within a period of one month thereafter. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.