Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 441 (RAJ)

Asha Varshney v. Omprakash

2009-02-10

GUMAN SINGH

body2009
Hon'ble SINGH, J.—The learned counsel for both the sides agreed for final disposal of the appeal at admission stage. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These appeals have been preferred for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Rajasthan Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur vide judgment dated 23.1.2003 whereby in CMA No.1060/03 (claim case no.635/96), injured Shankar Lal was awarded RS.76,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident resulting in 26% disability whereas in CMA No.1078/03 (claim case no.636/96), injured Smt.Asha Varshnay was awarded sum of Rs.3,36,000/-for the injuries sustained in the accident resulting in 51% disability. 3. The challenge in the appeals pertains to quantum of compensation only. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be enhanced in view of second schedule to the M.V. Act. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. C.M.A. No.1078/2003 (Claim Case No.636/1996) 6. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that injured-appellant Smt.Asha Varshnay was extensively hurt in the accident. She sustained fracture in hip bone and fracture of left thigh wherein steel screw was fixed through operation. The bone just below the knee was crushed. There were compound fractures of febula and tibia. She had to undergo operations for fifteen times. Both the bones of right leg sustained compound fracture. 7. The claimant-appellant Smt.Asha was Government employee, therefore, her loss of earning deserves to be computed considering the age of 60 years as she is to retire from government job at that age and multiplier of 8 is to be adopted. The learned Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as against the permanent disablement and Rs.50,000/- for the injuries and fracture, apart from Rs.30,000/- for pain and sufferings. The learned Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as against the permanent disablement and Rs.50,000/- for the injuries and fracture, apart from Rs.30,000/- for pain and sufferings. The amount of compensation deserves to be computed so as to place the injured in a position as if no disability was caused to her by computing the compensation under second schedule and for that purpose, out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as against disability and Rs.50,000/- for the bone injuries deserves to be deducted while Rs.30,000/- awarded for pain & sufferings deserves to be maintained. That apart, amount of medical bills of treatment in private hospital denied by the Tribunal need to be award. Thus the amount can be calculated as under: 6308 (monthly salary) x 12 x 8 (multiplier) = 605568 x 51% (disability) = 3,08,839 - 1,50,000 (aleady awarded) = 1,58,839/-+ 39,926 (payment of remaining bills of private hospital)= 1,98,765 (to be additionally awarded). 8. Accordingly, appeal of the appellants is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants shall get a sum of Rs.1,98,765/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 16.4.03, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent forthwith. C.M.A. No. 1060/2003 (Claim Case No.635/1996) 9. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that at the time of accident, injured Shankar Lal was 45 years of age and his income is stated to be 6500/-as he was working as Lecturer in Government School and the amount of loss of earning on account of disability deserves to be awarded from the date of retirement i.e. at the age of 60 years and accordingly multiplier of 8 is required to be adopted. The amount so arrived is required to be deducted by a sum of Rs.35,000/- which was paid by the learned Tribunal for loss of earning on account of disability. That apart, sum of Rs.7930/-which was disallowed by the learned Tribunal being that of bills of private hospital is also required to be awarded. The amount so arrived is required to be deducted by a sum of Rs.35,000/- which was paid by the learned Tribunal for loss of earning on account of disability. That apart, sum of Rs.7930/-which was disallowed by the learned Tribunal being that of bills of private hospital is also required to be awarded. The amount can be calculated as under: 6500 (monthly salary) x 12 x 8 (multiplier) x 26% (disability) = 1,62,240 - 35,000 (already awarded) = 1,27,240 + 7930 (amount of bills) = 1,35,170 (to be additionally awarded). 10. Accordingly, appeal of the appellant is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants shall get a sum of Rs.1,35,170/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 16.4.2003, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent forthwith.