Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2397 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadhuram Yadav

2011-11-09

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Both, the appeal as well as cross objection arise out of the common award dated 2.8.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District Jaipur. While the appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company for setting aside the award, cross-objection has been filed by claimant-respondent No.1 Sadhuram Yadav dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Shri Vizzy Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in law while not accepting the age of injured-respondent No.1 Sadhuram Yadav as 60 years as shown in the injury report as well as x-ray report and wrongly accepted his age to be 54 years and on that basis wrongly applied the multiplier of 11 instead of 5. Therefore, the award for the sum of Rs.3,91,800/- is towards the higher side for the injuries sustained by respondent No.1. 3. Shri Lokesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Sadhuram Yadav in cross objection has argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in law while accepting the age of respondent No.1 to be 54 years, whereas as per evidence, he was 45 years of age at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal has also wrongly accepted the monthly income of the respondent to be of Rs.3,000/- per month whereas, at the relevant time, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal awarded lesser interest @9% whereas, atleast interest @12% should have been awarded. Thus, amount of compensation should suitably be enhanced. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award, I find that the learned Tribunal rightly determined loss of income to the extent of 80% in view of 80% permanent disability sustained by injured-respondent No.1 and also rightly accepted the monthly income of the injured of Rs.3,000/- because the respondent failed to prove his income to be of Rs.10,000/-. Thus, determining loss of income to the extent of 80%, learned Tribunal rightly assessed loss of monthly income of Rs.2400/-, which cannot be held to be unjustified. There were contradictions in the documents depicting two age of the respondent to be of 45 & 60 years. Therefore, on safer side, the age of the injured-respondent was accepted as 54 years and thus, according to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the multiplier of 11 has correctly been applied. 5. There were contradictions in the documents depicting two age of the respondent to be of 45 & 60 years. Therefore, on safer side, the age of the injured-respondent was accepted as 54 years and thus, according to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the multiplier of 11 has correctly been applied. 5. In my considered view, the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in passing the award in the sum of Rs.3,91,800/- looking to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1. Each and every head has been considered in the light of the evidence available on record and a just and reasonable amount of compensation has been awarded. The impugned-award does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. 6. The appeal as well as cross-objection are dismissed.