Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 757 (RAJ)

Ravindra Singh v. Bhagwan Singh

2011-04-13

VINEET KOTHARI

body2011
Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—Heard learned counsel. 2. In an accident which took place on 17/4/2005 at about 5-5.30 pm, the injured claimant-Ravinder Singh, who was going on feet near RTO office was hit by the insured vehicle RJ-19-T-4021 and on account of injury due to said accident, the claimant filed present claim petition. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,87,357/- for the femur bone fracture suffered by the claimant injured. The allocation of the said compensation is as under:- (i) Rs. 76,357/- for Medical Expenses incurred during treatment. (ii) Rs. 51,000/- for 102 days hospitalization. (iii) Rs. 40,000/- for pain and agony. (iv) Rs. 5000/- for food. (v) Rs. 5000/- for travelling expenses. (vi) Rs. 10,000/- for loss of income. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was shortening of leg by one and a half inch and he also produced a copy of certificate issued by concerned Doctor before this Court for perusal. The claimant was working in a private construction company. From the perusal of the impugned award & discussion made by the learned Tribunal of the evidence produced before it, this Court is satisfied that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to the extent of Rs.1,87,357/- is more than adequate looking to the injury suffered by the claimant and no permanent disability can be said to have occurred, which can result in future loss of income and, therefore, no additional compensation is required to be given for that purpose. It may be noticed here that Insurance Company's money is a public money and cannot be distributed as largess by unnecessarily enhancing the compensation to the claimant. The learned Tribunal in the present case appears to have considered the relevant evidence and granted more than adequate com-pensation for the injury suffered by the claimant injured and this Court is satisfied that the claim does not require any further enhancement. 4. Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.