Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2501 (RAJ)

Goma Ram v. Iqraru Khan

2008-11-12

N.K.JAIN

body2008
Judgment Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. 3. The contesting respondent is represented by their counsel. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the final argum-ents were heard in the appeal and the same is being disposed of finally. 4. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in motor accident took place on 16.3.2001 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 25.10.2002 passed by the learned Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,39,000/- in his favour as under; Rs.18,000/- for physical pain and mental agony as the appellant remained admitted in hospital for 18 days, Rs.13,000/- for medical bills, Rs.1,08,000/- for loss of income due to 45.45% permanent disability. 5. The only argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the monthly income of the appellant was Rs.3,500/- but the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in assessing the notional annual income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/-. He contended that Aw 2 Bahra Ram, the employer of injured Goma Ram was examined in the case who in his statement stated that he was paying Rs.2,000/- per month to Goma Ram, therefore at least Rs.2000/- per month ought to have been assessed as income of the appellant. He further contended that in case the annual income of the appellant is assessed at Rs.24,000/- and multiplier of 16 is applied and in view of the 45.45% permanent disability the amount of compensation is allowed, it comes to Rs.1,83,600/- and even if the 1/3 amount is deducted for personal expenses / miscellaneous expenses, then at least a sum of Rs.1,22,400/-should have been allowed as compensation under the head of loss of income in place of Rs.1,08,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. He, therefore, contended that the amount of compensation to that extent, may be enhanced and the impugned award be modified accordingly. 6. Leaned counsel for the respondents contended that looking to the income, age and permanent disability of the appellant, the amount of Rs.1,39,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, cannot be said to be a megre amount and it is just and reasonable. Therefore, no interference in it, is called for. 7. 6. Leaned counsel for the respondents contended that looking to the income, age and permanent disability of the appellant, the amount of Rs.1,39,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, cannot be said to be a megre amount and it is just and reasonable. Therefore, no interference in it, is called for. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award as well as the record of the Tribunal. The Tribunal assessed the income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of minimum wage. It is relevant to mention that AW 2 Bahra Ram who was employer of injured Goma Ram, was examined in the matter who stated that Goma Ram was earning Rs.3,500/- per month but in his cross examination, he stated that it is wrong to say that he was paying the salary of Rs.3,500/- but he was paying Rs.2000/-. From the statement of AW 2 Bahra Ram, employer of injured, it is clear that at least the appellant was earning Rs.2000/- per month. In these circumstances, I find that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in assessing the annual income of injured as Rs.15,000/- and I assess the same as Rs.24,000/- per year. The injured was 20 years of age, therefore, multiplier of 16 is applicable and the total amount comes to Rs.4,08,000/-. In view of 45.45% permanent disability, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,83,600/-. There are two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that 1/3 amount is also deducted even in the injury cases for personal expenses/ miscellaneous expenses and they are Sunil Kumar vs. Ram Singh Gaud and others ( 2008 ACJ 9 ) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie & Anr. (2005(2) ACC 74 (SC)) (para 5). If the 1/3 amount is deducted for the personal expenses, then remaining amount comes to Rs.1,22,400/-. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,22,400/- is allowed towards loss of income in place of Rs.1,08,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.31,000/- for medical bills and physical pain and mental agony and the the said amount is also awarded to the appellant, therefore, total amount of compensation in the present case comes to Rs.1,53,400/-. 8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation of Rs.1,39,000/- is enhanced to Rs.1,53,400/-. The impugned award of Tribunal is accordingly modified. 8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation of Rs.1,39,000/- is enhanced to Rs.1,53,400/-. The impugned award of Tribunal is accordingly modified. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of application i.e. 7.4.2001 till date of realisation. No order as to costs.