Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2517 (RAJ)

Ankur Sharma v. Suwa Lal

2011-11-21

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimant dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation in an injury case. 2. Shri Rajendra Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that appellant lost vision of one eye in the accident involving the vehicle insured with the respondent insurance company. His permanent disability was assessed at 40%. The learned Tribunal accepting his income to be Rs.3,000 per month and on his age of 18 years applying multiplier of 16 computed the loss of income at Rs.2,30,400/-. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as per the judgment of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.-(2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), the multiplier of 18 should have been applied in this case. It was argued that for pain and suffering, the learned Tribunal has awarded a mere sum of Rs.3,000, which should be suitably increased. It was argued that for medical expenses of Rs.25,000, of which bills are produced, only Rs.1,000 has been awarded. 3. Shri Praveen Jain, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that disability of 40% in the present case cannot be said to be such which may have reduced the earning capacity of the appellant to the extent of 40%, which is merely loss of vision in left eye. Learned counsel argued that as far as actual medical expenses are concerned, the other bills that were produced did not contain either the name of doctor or the patient, therefore, they were not believed and only the bill of Rs.1,000 was believed and accordingly same was paid. He submits that in totality, the award is just and reasonable. 4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the multiplier of 18 should be applied in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra because the age of the appellant was 18 years at the time of accident. Besides that, it appears that the appellant was subjected to treatment. This fact is indicative from the various documents produced by the appellant and also the disability certificate. Though, Tribunal has not believed the medical bills worth Rs.25,000/- or more, even then, the amount of Rs.1,000/- cannot be said to be just and reasonable and it deserves to be enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. This fact is indicative from the various documents produced by the appellant and also the disability certificate. Though, Tribunal has not believed the medical bills worth Rs.25,000/- or more, even then, the amount of Rs.1,000/- cannot be said to be just and reasonable and it deserves to be enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. Under the head of pain and suffering, award of Rs.3,000 is also highly insignificant which deserves to be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The award of Rs.2,000 for misc. expenses is maintained. Thus the award is set aside and the amount of compensation is calculated while applying the multiplier of 18 in the yearly income of the injured i.e. Rs.14,400 as computed by the Tribunal which comes to Rs.2,59,200 (14,400 x 18). The total amount of compensation thus comes to Rs.2,76,200 (259200 + 5000 + 10000 + 2000). The amount of compensation is therefore enhanced from Rs.2,36,400 to Rs.2,59,200. The appellant is also entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount. 5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 6. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents.