Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2194 (RAJ)

Rameshwar Prasad Yadav v. Badri Prasad Saini

2011-10-13

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant Rameshwar Prasad Yadav aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli dated 10.2.1998 for enhancement of the compensation in an accident that took place on 27.1.1994. The appellant lost vision in one eye and also the smelling sense in nose. His disability was assessed at 46% i.e. 40% for the loss of vision in one eye and 6% for the loss of smelling sense. The Tribunal awarded to him a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- for loss of vision in one eye and also Rs.20,000/- for loss of smelling sense in the nose and additional Rs.20,000/- for treatment and attendant and Rs.5,000/- was also awarded for transportation charges and nutritious diet. Thus a total sum of Rs.1,70,000/- was awarded to him, out of which Rs.25,000/- has already been paid to him. Therefore, the award of Rs.1,45,000/- was passed. 2. Shri Poonam Chand Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant has cited the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Deepak Kumar vs. Mohanlal & Ors.- 2010 ACJ 629 and argued that for loss of vision in one eye, the Tribunal in that case awarded a sum of Rs.63,000/-, however, the High Court awarded further amount of Rs.50,000/- for pain and sufferings and mental shock due to loss of eye and further amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of vision in one eye, loss of confidence, discomfort and hardship for remaining period of life and loss of marriage prospects life Rs.60,000/-. Thus a total sum of Rs.3,13,000 was awarded as compensation. 3. Per contra, Shri Tripurari Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and cited the judgment of Full Bench in Kerala High Court in Vanajakshan vs. Joseph-2003(3) TAC 118 (Ker.) and argued that in the case of loss of vision in one eye, that Court upheld the order passed by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation whereby Rs.45,374/- was awarded as compensation. He also cited the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kosuru Gupteswara Rao vs. Charakana Sreenu & Ors.- 2005 ACJ 468 , in which case the award of Rs.65,000/- for loss of vision of right eye to the extent of 30% and disfiguration of face was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- only. He also cited the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kosuru Gupteswara Rao vs. Charakana Sreenu & Ors.- 2005 ACJ 468 , in which case the award of Rs.65,000/- for loss of vision of right eye to the extent of 30% and disfiguration of face was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- only. Learned counsel cited the judgment of Allahabad High Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Rajeev Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr.-2003(3) TAC 552 (All.) and argued that in that case the award of Rs.1,50,000 for loss of eye sight in left eye was held to be justifiable. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that at the relevant time, the minimum wages for the skilled labour was Rs.34/- per day as per the Minimum Wages Act. There was no definite evidence of proof regarding other income of the appellant except that he was described to be a driver and that even under the Workmen Compensation Act, the compensation can be awarded to the extent of 50% of the income of the driver. If the income of the driver is expected even to be Rs.2,000/- at the maximum, the appellant would be entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,000/- per month. In that too, applying the proportion of disability of 46%, appropriately Rs.500/- per month, therefore, on that basis whatever has been awarded to the appellant is perfectly justified. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the Tribunal in the present case has awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000 for loss one vision and Rs.20,000/- for the loss of smelling sense in nose and to that extent the Tribunal is justified, but it has not awarded any amount under the head pain and suffering and mental shock, therefore, the appellant is held entitled to further amount of Rs.50,000/- under this head. He has been cumulatively awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for transportation and nutritious diet, whereas under each of these heads, he should have been awarded Rs.5,000/-, thus a total of Rs.10,000/-. Thus the appellant is held entitled to Rs.2,00,000/-. The amount of compensation is therefore enhanced from Rs.1,45,000 to Rs.2,00,000/- i.e. Rs.55,000/-. The appellant is held entitled to interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. The appeal is thus partly allowed with the aforesaid directions.