Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 932 (RAJ)

Monik Jain v. Bhagwan Singh

2009-04-01

K.S.CHAUDHARI

body2009
Hon'ble CHAUDHARI, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 8.5.2000 passed by the Judge, MACT, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in MAC No. 110/99 (Monik Jain vs. Bhagwan Singh & others) by which learned Tribunal awarded a claim of Rs.3,02,400/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 7.10.98 at 11 A.M. Appellant was going on scooter No.RJ 14-M/7148 with Chandra Prakash. Near Visva Karma Road No.2, respondent No.2 while driving truck No R.J.V.7101 rashly and negligently hit the scooter and caused injuries to the appellant and Chandra Prakash.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. 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, and learned Tribunal committed error in not awarding interest from the date of filing claim, 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 already excessive, hence, appeal may be dismissed. 6. A.W.1 Monik has stated in his statement that on account of injuries, he had to remain hospitalised two times in the year 1998 and again in February 1999 he was operated. He further stated that plaster continued up to September 1999 and dressing continued up to 2000. He has also exhibited Injury Report, X-Ray Report and two Disability Certificates Ex-115 and Ex16. He has also stated that on account of accident, his leg has been shortened and there is deformity in his leg. Now he cannot work and cannot drive vehicle. A.W.3 Deep Chand, who is father of the appellant has stated that appellant was operated and plaster continued for 6-7 months. He admitted that appellant was getting Rs.3000/- per month as salary from C.A.C.S technology and used to earn Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/- per month by part time work. 7. As far income of the appellant is concerned, learned Tribunal has rightly held that appellant could not prove income from part time work. He admitted that appellant was getting Rs.3000/- per month as salary from C.A.C.S technology and used to earn Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/- per month by part time work. 7. As far income of the appellant is concerned, learned Tribunal has rightly held that appellant could not prove income from part time work. As far income from salary is concerned, learned Tribunal has assessed salary @ Rs.3,500/- per month whereas appointment letter reveals that appellant was getting Rs.3,000/- per month as salary,though, appellant has stated in his statement that he used to get Rs.3,500/- per month salary which is apparently not correct in the light of appointment order and statement of his father A.W.3 Deep Chand. In such circumstances, appellant's income can be assessed @ Rs.3000/- per month. 8. As far disability is concerned, A.W. 1 Monik has exhibited Disability Certificate Ex-115 and Ex-16. A.W.4 Dr.M.R.Goyal has stated in his statement that he was member of Medical Board and examined Monik on 12.9.99 and found 10% disability and issued Disability Certificate Ex-16. Again on 13.2.2000, appellant was examined and found 33% disability in his lower limb. Dr.Goyal has stated that interim certificate was issued on 12.9.99, as treatment was continuing and it was mentioned that even after completion of treatment, there will be disability of atleast 10%. As per Disability Certificate Ex-115 and other documents, appellant remained hospitalised maximum up to 7.3.99 and as per statement of witnesses, paster of leg continued for 6-7 months. Meaning thereby, after issue of interm Disability Certificate Ex-16, no treatment continued. After 5 months on what basis disability was assessed to 33%, is not clear and in such circumstances, permanent disability should be presumed 20% instead of 33%. In such circumstances, appellant is entitled to get compensation in the head of loss of future earnings 17 x 12 x 3000 x 20/100 = Rs.1,22,400/-. Appellant is also entitled to get Rs.20,000/- on account of physical, mental agony and Pain & sufferings. In this way in these two heads, appellant is entitled to get Rs.1,42,400/- whereas learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/-. 9. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.42,000/- on account of loss of earning during period of one year and has awarded Rs.5,400/- for helper and Rs.5,000/- on account of future treatment and has also awarded Rs.1,50,000/- on account of Medical Bills, hospital expenses and special diet. 9. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.42,000/- on account of loss of earning during period of one year and has awarded Rs.5,400/- for helper and Rs.5,000/- on account of future treatment and has also awarded Rs.1,50,000/- on account of Medical Bills, hospital expenses and special diet. These amounts need not to be enhanced as they are just and proper. 10. In the light of above discussions, appellant is entitled to get Rs.3,44,800/- instead of Rs.3,02,400/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that learned Tribunal has committed error in not awarding interest from the date of filing of claim. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded interest only in case awarded amount is not paid within 45 days. Normally, interest should have been awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition to the date of realisation of amount as held by Apex Court in Chameli & Another vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & others reported in AIR 1986 SC 1191 and in Ramzan Khan & anr vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. Reported in 2009 R.A.R 33(SC), wherein interest @ 12% has been awarded. In the light of the aforesaid judgments (supra), the appellant is entitled to get interest @ 12 % per annum. 12. Consequently, in the light of above discussion, this appeal is party allowed and the award dated 8.5.2000 passed by the Judge, M.A.C.T., Jaipur City,Jaipur, is modified to the extent the appellant will be entitled to get Rs.3,44,800/- instead of Rs.3,02,400/-and further appellant will be entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum on this amount from the date of filing of claim petition i.e.22.12.98 till the date of realisation of the awarded amount.