Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 904 (RAJ)

Govind v. Kailash

2009-03-30

K.S.CHAUDHARI

body2009
Hon'ble CHAUDHARI, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 6.8.99 passed by the Judge, MACT, Dausa, in MAC No. 142/98 (Govind vs. Kailash & others.) by which learned Tribunal awarded claim of Rs.1,52,600/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.5.97 appellant was travelling as labourer in tractor trolley towards his village. When tractor reached near Truck Union, truck No.GJ-7 X-6123 which was driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, hit tractor trolley, on account of which appellant sustained injuries. This truck is owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3,hence, appellant claimed compensation. 3. Respondent No.1 and 2 did not appear before Tribunal and respondent No.3 filed reply and raised many objections and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. After recording evidence, learned Tribunal awarded compensation as above, against which this appeal has been filed. 4. None appeared for respondent No.1 and 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.3 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that looking to the injuries and disability, learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding lesser amount,hence, appeal may be accepted and awarded amount may be enhanced whereas learned counsel for the respondent submitted that amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, hence, appeal may be dismissed. 6. A.W.1 Govind has stated in his statement that he was going in tractor trolley as labourer. When tractor reached near Truck Union, truck No. GJ-7X- 6123 which was driven by driver rashly and negligently, hit tractor trolley, on account of which he sustained injuries on all parts of the body. He remained in hospital for three months. He further stated that on account of fracture on his head he lost his eye-sight of one eye and his memory has also been affected. He has exhibited Injury Report, X-Ray Report, Disability Certificate and Medical bills. He has also stated that he used to earn Rs.3000/- per month by agriculture labour and he was 45years old at the time of accident. He has admitted in cross examination that construction labour used to get Rs.50/- per day. 7. Appellant was 45 years old at the time of accident, though, different age has been mentioned in disability certificate, injury report and discharge ticket. He has admitted in cross examination that construction labour used to get Rs.50/- per day. 7. Appellant was 45 years old at the time of accident, though, different age has been mentioned in disability certificate, injury report and discharge ticket. As per Injury Report Ex-7, he sustained four injuries and as per X-Ray Report, there was multiple fracture in frontal region and as per Disability Certificate Ex-1, head injury resulted into loss of vision of left eye and on account of this total permanent physical disability was assessed to 40%. As per Schedule-I Workmen Compensation Act, in case of loss of vision of one eye,without complications, disfigurement of eye ball, other being normal disability has been shown to be 30%. In case in hand, it has not been mentioned in the Disability Certificate that there was any disfigurement of eye ball. In such circumstances, 30% disability should have been assessed by the Medical Board. Appellant has not examined member of the Medical Board and in absence of doctor's statement, 30% disability should be presumed. 8. Learned Tribunal has rightly assessed Rs.2000/- per month income of the appellant. Though, appellant has stated that he used to earn Rs.3000/- per month but he has admitted in his cross examination that construction labour used to get Rs.50/- per day, in such circumstances, appellant's income cannot be assessed to the tune of Rs.100/- per day. Hence, appellant is entitled to get Rs.2000/- x 12 x 15 x 30/100 = 1,08,000/-. in the head of loss of future earning instead of Rs.96,000/- awarded by the learned tribunal. In other heads, learned Tribunal has already awarded more than required compensation which need not to be enhanced. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on 1995 ACJ 366 (SC) R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt.Ltd & others in which compensation was awarded in different heads. In case in hand, learned Tribunal has already awarded compensation in different heads which need not to be enhanced. 10. Thus, appellant is entitled to get Rs.1,64,600/-as compensation instead of Rs.1,52,600/-. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that only 6% interest should be awarded on enhanced amount instead of 12%. In this case compensation has been enhanced only by Rs.12,000/-, in such circumstances, different rate of interest need not to be applied. 12. 10. Thus, appellant is entitled to get Rs.1,64,600/-as compensation instead of Rs.1,52,600/-. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that only 6% interest should be awarded on enhanced amount instead of 12%. In this case compensation has been enhanced only by Rs.12,000/-, in such circumstances, different rate of interest need not to be applied. 12. Consequently, in the light of above discussions, this appeal is partly allowed and the award dated 6.8.99 pertaining to appellant's claim No.142/98 is modified to the extent that appellant will be entitled to get Rs.1,64,600/- instead of Rs.1,52,600/- with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.