Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2602 (RAJ)

Hoshiyar Singh v. M. A. C. T. Neemkathana, Sikar

2011-11-28

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant/appellant dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neemkathana, Sikar amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- vide award dated 4.8.2005. 2. Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the injured-appellant argued that the learned Tribunal erred in law while not awarding any compensation for 'loss of income' while not computing income of the appellant to be Rs.3,000/- per month, which he was earning from the agriculture work and further not applying the multi-plier of 18 as per the age of the appellant to be 20 years and did not compute the compensation on that basis. Appellant sustained 31.67% permanent disability (Exh.59) and due to the fracture in his 'right elbow' & 'mandible', appellant suffered loss of income for Rs.3,000/- per month for a period of 17 months w.e.f. 22.4.2002 to September 2003 but nothing has been awarded under the head of 'loss of income'. Learned Tribunal further erred in law while awarding a lump-sum amount of compensation of Rs.80,000/- for 'pain and suffering' and 'loss of future income & loss of earning capacity'. The appeal therefore be allowed and the compensation be suitably enhanced. 3. Shri Inderjeet Singh, learned counsel appearing for United Insurance Co.Ltd. Jhunjhunu – has opposed the appeal and argued that driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the jeep violated the terms & condition of the policy as the risk of passengers travelling in the jeep, was not covered under the policy insured with the insurance company. Keeping in view this fact therefore learned Tribunal awarded a just amount of compensation looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the injured-appellant. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perused the award, I find that compensation awarded cumulatively for 'pain and suffering', 'loss of future income & loss of earning capacity' in the sum of Rs.80,000/-, is not justified. Learned Tribunal also erred in law while not adopting any multiplier accepting the loss of income and did not compute the compensation on that basis. 5. The appeal therefore deserves to be accepted. Learned Tribunal also erred in law while not adopting any multiplier accepting the loss of income and did not compute the compensation on that basis. 5. The appeal therefore deserves to be accepted. The appellant was 20 years of age at the time of accident and as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), the correct multiplier for the age group of 15-20 years is 18. Therefore multiplier of 18 is adopted in the present case. Learned Tribunal further erred in law while not computing 'income' of the injured-appellant and awarded nothing for 'loss of income'. Therefore, Rs.3,000/- per month is accepted 'income' of the appellant and Rs.1,000/- is additionally awarded for 'loss of earning capacity'. Thus, in all Rs.4,000/- per month is accepted as 'loss of income'. Rs.25,000/- is awarded for 'pain and suffering'. Amount of Rs.20,000/- granted cumulatively for 'medical expenses', 'nutritious diet' & 'transportation charges', is maintained. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neemkathana, Sikar dated 4.8.2005 is modified in the terms that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is enhanced to Rs.3,18,629/- (4000x12x18 = 8,64,000 x 31.67% = 2,73,629/- + 25,000 + 20,000 = 3,18,629). 7. The appellant is entitled to receive interest @7.5% on the enhanced/differential amount of compensation of Rs.2,18,629/- (3,18,629-1,00,000) from the date of filing claim petition. 8. Record be remitted back to the Tribunal forthwith.