Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 336 (RAJ)

Nandlal Bairwa v. Dalpat Singh

2012-02-07

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement against the award dated 2.4.1998 passed in MAC No. 576/1991. 2. The brief facts of the case according to claim petition are that injured-appellant met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 - Dalpat Singh. Due to accident, the appellant suffered grievous injuries including fracture in femur bone. He remained hospitalized for nearly 1-1/2 month and further remained under treatment for about six months. His right leg has been shortened due to accident and medical board has given opinion that he has suffered permanent disability to the tune of 16% but the learned Tribunal has not assessed his injuries in right perspective and for such grievous injuries and permanent disability, a meager compensation of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded. It was also submitted that on account of medical expenses and other expenses, Rs. 5,000/- and for physical pain and sufferings and loss of income, only Rs. 10,000/- have been awarded, which should be enhanced. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record, specially the impugned judgment and award. 4. The contention of the present appellants is that due to the accident, he has suffered grievous injuries and his right leg has been shortened. The disability certificate also goes to show that he suffered 16% permanent disability. The contention of the present appellant is that the scientific method to calculate the compensation is of multiplier method, which has not been used by the learned Tribunal and a lump-sum amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded. The appellant has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Sant Singh vs. Sukhdev Singh & Ors. (2011) 11 SCC 632 ), wherein it has been held as under:- "It is now a well-settled principle of law that the payment of compensation on the basis of structured formula as provided for under the Second Schedule should not ordinarily be deviated from. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down the guidelines for determination of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166 thereof. Deviation may be resorted to in exceptional case. Furthermore, the amount of compensation should be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of each case." 5. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down the guidelines for determination of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166 thereof. Deviation may be resorted to in exceptional case. Furthermore, the amount of compensation should be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of each case." 5. He has further relied on the judgment delivered in the case of Ghanshyam Das Choudhary vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. (RLW 2008(2) Raj. 1092) wherein also, it has been held that according to structural formula provided in Second Schedule, the loss of dependency should be calculated. 6. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Amar Chand vs. Sur Gyan Meena & Ors. (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 297/2000, decided on 26.3.2009), wherein compensation has been awarded on structural formula. 7. Appellant Nandlal was aged 32 years at the of accident. He has stated that he was a mason and his income was Rs. 2,000/- per month. Looking to the above facts, income of the appellant deserves to be assessed @ Rs. 1,500/- per month and looking to his age, the multiplier of 16 is appropriate multiplier so as to adequately compensate the injury by taking note of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, the amount comes to Rs. 1,500 x 12 x 16 = 2,88,000 and 16% of it comes to Rs. 46,080/-. 8. It is also submitted by the appellant that on account of medical expenses and special food, only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded. The learned Tribunal has already held that the present appellant has not submitted any documents regarding his medical expenses and thus, looking to the over all circumstances of the case, Rs. 5,000/- has rightly been awarded. 9. Rs. 10,000/- has also rightly been awarded for physical pain & suffering and loss of income. Hence, there is no need to enhance the statutory compensation. 10. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced by Rs. 46,080 - Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 21,080/- along with interest @ 7-1/2% on the enhanced amount from the date of filing appeal till actual payment is made.