Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2330 (RAJ)

Bahadur Singh v. Ashok Kumar Gadia, Manager, Shakambari Cement Pvt. Lltd.

2008-10-14

N.K.JAIN

body2008
Judgment Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal, on behalf of injured appellant, for enhancement of the amount of compensation, is directed against the impugned judgment dated 5th February, 1997, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,752.56p. towards compenation under the following Heads:- S.No. Head Amount 1. General Damages & Special Damages Rs.100000.00 2. Actual Medical Expenses incurred (As per Medical Vouchers) Rs.016752.00 3. Gratuitous Service by the wife of injured appellant Bahadur Singh due to his incapability Rs.050000.00 4. Loss of earning capacity of injured appellant Bahadur Singh Rs.050000.00 Total Amount Rs.216752.00 The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the Tribunal in respect of Issues No.2 and 4, and contended that from the documentary evidence placed on the record it is clear that at the relevant time the appellant was getting the salary of Rs.2500/- per month and he was forty years old and, as per the medical/disability certificate, he sustained 75% disability. He, therefore, contended that as per the second schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied and, on applying the aforesaid multiplier, even as per his admitted income, the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- comes which should have been awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant as compensation. He, therefore, contended that the amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and no interference is called for in the same. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of their submissions and the record of the learned Tribunal. There is no dispute in between both the parties that the appellant sustained injuries in the accident arose out of use of motor vehicle. The learned counsel for the parties have also not challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal arrived thereby in respect of age and income of the injured appellant. The learned Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the income of the appellant was Rs.2500/-per month and his age was 40 years at the time of incident. The learned counsel for the parties have also not challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal arrived thereby in respect of age and income of the injured appellant. The learned Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the income of the appellant was Rs.2500/-per month and his age was 40 years at the time of incident. The claimants have placed on the record a copy of medical-certificate issued by Rehabilitation Research & Regional Lime Fitting Center, Jaipur (Exhibit-12), wherein it has been certified that the injured appellant was admitted in the Hospital on 13.3.1994 and discharged on 13.4.1994 and was treated for Head injury with fracture leg bones (left). The Medical Board opined that the appellant suffered following injuries by reason of such accident:- “(b) Destruction of permanent impairment of the powers of any member or joint, with percentage of impairment or destruction or disability (mention) -Quadriparesis with 75% disability of total body due to Head injury (acute subdural hemorrhage where operation was done for treatment purpose). (d) Any other material observation having adverse bearing on the life expectancy or normal functioning of the body limb injured/ affected under examination-mentally and physically dependent on others for activities of daily living. Orientation also impaired.” Exhibit-13 is the Discharge Certificate issued by the Department of Orthopaedics, S.M.S. Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur, which also shows that the appellant was admitted for treatment of head injury. PW-3 Dr. M.K. Mathur has proved the disability certificate (Exhibit-12) and also the medicalcertificate (Exhibit-10). From the disability certifi-cate (Exhibit-12), which has been proved by Dr. M.K. Mathur (PW-3), it is clear that the appellant suffered Quadriparesis with 75% disability of total body due to head injury; he is mentally and physically dependent on others for activities of daily living; orientation also impaired. The learned Tribunal, in its judgment, has also recorded the condition of the appellant that he was brought by two persons when he came in the Tribunal. There is note in this regard below the statement of PW-3 Dr. M.K. Mathur, which reads as under:- ^^uksV % cgknqj flag vkgr dks U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k tks vknfe;ksa }kjk idM+ dj yk;k x;k vkSj Lo;a [kM+k ugha gks ldrkA tks pyus fQjus dh gkyr esa ugha gSA** He also suffered paralysis which was due to Head injury as stated by PW-3 Dr. M.K. Mathur. M.K. Mathur, which reads as under:- ^^uksV % cgknqj flag vkgr dks U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k tks vknfe;ksa }kjk idM+ dj yk;k x;k vkSj Lo;a [kM+k ugha gks ldrkA tks pyus fQjus dh gkyr esa ugha gSA** He also suffered paralysis which was due to Head injury as stated by PW-3 Dr. M.K. Mathur. So far as income of the appellant is concerned, his salary-certificate issued by his employer (Exhibit-11) has also been produced and exhibited, wherein the employer has certified that the appellant Bahadur Singh worked with them as Operator on Granite Cutter Machine from 20.03.1993 to 10.03.1994 and he was paid the monthly salary of Rs.2500/-. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examining the entire record of the case, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to get compensation on the basis of his monthly income i.e. Rs.2500/- taking his age to be 40 years and, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied by the learned Tribunal as per second schedule attached with the Act of 1988. Therefore, had the injured appellant suffered 100% disability, the total amount of compensation would have been thus – 2500x12x15 = Rs.4,50,000/-. As per disability certificate (Exhibit-12) the injured appellant sustained 75% disability, therefore, he is entitled for 75% of Rs.4,50,000/-, which comes to Rs.3,37,500/-. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the claimant-appellant is allowed. The impugned award is modified. The total amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.2,16,752.56p. to Rs.3,37,500/- The appellant will also be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of award passed by the Tribunal i.e. 5th February, 1997 till the date of realization. No order as to costs.