Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 824 (RAJ)

Vijay Bahadur v. Gopal Singh

2009-03-20

K.S.CHAUDHARI

body2009
Hon'ble CHAUDHARI, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 5.10.99 passed by the Judge, MACT, Jaipurcity, Jaipur, in Claim No.700/95 (Vijay Bahadur vs. Gopal Singh & others) by which tribunal awarded claim of Rs.1,82,400/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.12.94 at 3 P.M. when appellant was going on cycle near Sodala where Roadways bus R.N.P.308 driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently hit the appellant and caused injuries. This bus is owned by respondent No.2.Hence, appellant claim claimed compensation. 3. Respondent No.1 and 2 filed separate replies and submitted that appellant suffered injuries on account of his own negligence and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. After recording evidence, learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,74,000/-againsh which this appeal has been filed. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that looking to the disability proved by the appellant, Tribunal has committed error in awarding only Rs.1,20,000/- in the head of disability, pain and future earning. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in assessing income of the appellant to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month, hence, awarded amount may be enhanced. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that already excessive compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal, hence, appeal may be dismissed. 6. As far income of the appellant injured is concerned, in the claim petition appellant has shown his income as Rs.4000/- per month. Appellant has stated in his statement that he used to earn some time Rs.5000/-, some time Rs.6000/- per month and some time Rs.10,000/-per month. He admitted in his cross examination that he has passed only V th class and he used to do contract work of pressing cloths in Ready made garment factory. He further admitted that light expenditure is borne by the factory and he used to get monthly payment by vouchers and cheques. He has not produced any account of receipts. He admitted that he does not pay income tax. Looking to the work of the appellant and in absence of vouchers, cheques and contract note and his educational qualification, it cannot be presumed that the appellant was earning Rs.5-10,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal has assessed appellant's income to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month. He admitted that he does not pay income tax. Looking to the work of the appellant and in absence of vouchers, cheques and contract note and his educational qualification, it cannot be presumed that the appellant was earning Rs.5-10,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal has assessed appellant's income to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month. Accident took place in the year 1994 and looking to the work of appellant, in my view appellant's income should have been assessed @ Rs.2000/- per month instead of Rs.3000/- per month. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on 2009 RAR 84 (SC) Raiesh Ahmed vs. United India Insurance in which Apex Court while reversing judgment of High Court upheld finding of Tribunal and observed that where injured suffered 30% permanent disability, with income of Rs.36,000/- per annum, multiplier of 16 was correctly applied and awarded compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- including compen-sation of Rs.1,72,000/- for loss of future earning was proper. In the case in hand, appellant has suffered 50.85% disability as per disability certificate Ex 199 which has been proved by A.W.3 Dr. M.R. Goyal who was member of the Disability Board. If appellants income is assessed at Rs.2000/- per month he is entitled to multiplier of 15 at the age of 40 years and in such circumstances loss of earning on account of disability comes to 2000 x 12 x 15 x 50.85%/ 100 = Rs. 1,83,060/-. 8. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- in the head of loss of income for 10 months. As per above discussion, I have assessed income of appellant @ Rs.2000/- per month, in such circumstances, the appellant is entitled to get Rs.20,000/- instead of 30,000/- in the head of loss of earning for the period of treatment i.e 10 months. Learned Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.35,000/- on account of 7 fractures, Rs.12,000/- in the head of expenditure of medicines and Rs.10,000/- in the head of diet and other expenses. As per above discussions, appellant is entitled to get Rs.1,83,060/- + Rs.35,000/-+ Rs.20,000/- +12,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = 2,60,060/-. 9. Consequently, in the light of above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and award dated 5.10.99 passed by Judge, MACT, Jaipur City, Jaipur is modified to the extent of Rs.2,60,060/- instead of Rs.2,07,400/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.