Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 582 (RAJ)

Parshu Ram @ Krishna Gopal v. Ram Baksh

2011-03-16

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is preferred against the judgment and award dated 27.5.2008 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, in Claim Case No. 40/2007 "Parshu Ram @ Krishna Gopal vs. Ram Baksh & Ors." whereby a claim of Rs. 39,300/- has been awarded to the appellant-claimant. 2. The facts in brief are that on 12.8.2006 the claimant-appellant was going towards the National Highway No. 12 sitting on a motor cycle and when he reached the place Tan Juniya, the respondent No.1, who was driving the Car No. RJ 14 TA 0097 of respondent No.2 rashly and negligently hit the motor cycle due to which the claimant sustained serious injuries. 3. The appellant claimant has filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. After service, reply was filed. Issues were framed. After recording the evidence, the learned Tribunal had passed the aforesaid award, against which, this civil misc. appeal is preferred. 4. Mr. Sandeep Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has not rightly assessed the income of the claimant nor appreciated the evidence submitted by him. 5. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal has not awarded the compensation for shortening of leg. And, for that purpose, the award should be modified and award amount should be enhanced. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Vinod Tyagi who accepts notice on behalf of the National Insurance Company has contended hat the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award. 7. He has further contended that the appellant has not submitted any written document regarding the age and income of the claimant and everything has been submitted in oral. And, as such, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income and awarded the amount of compensation and not interference by this Court is required. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the material on record. 9. The claimant has not submitted any written document regard-ing his age and income. In the claim petition age of the claimant was shown as 20 years but no proof to this effect was produced. As also, he failed to prove that on what count he was earning from agriculture. Simply saying that he was earning from agriculture is not a sufficient ground for income. In the claim petition age of the claimant was shown as 20 years but no proof to this effect was produced. As also, he failed to prove that on what count he was earning from agriculture. Simply saying that he was earning from agriculture is not a sufficient ground for income. Therefore, the Tribunal while assessing the income of the claimant as Rs.15,000/- per year and looking to the age applied the multiplier of 15 which in my view has rightly been adopted. 10. In this view of the matter, as no case for enhancement of the award amount is made out, the civil misc. appeal is dismissed. The award dated 27.5.2008 is hereby confirmed.