Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 474 (RAJ)

Mangal Singh v. Parveen Chauhan

2012-02-17

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2012
TRIVEDI, J.—The present appeal has been filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,(for short the Act) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar, in Claim Case No. 217/2011(418/09), whereby the Tribunal vide the judgment and award dated 14.6.2011, has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 33,609/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident in question. 2. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the disability to the extent of 15% as per the disability certificate produced by the appellant. Relying on the judgments of this Court in case of R.S.R.T.C. and Ors. vs. Devilal and Ors., AIR 1991 Raj. 29 , and of Allahabad High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Surendra Umrao and Anr. 2008 ACJ 293 , the learned counsel has submitted that the disability certificate issued by the medical board need not be proved. He also submitted that the Tribunal without any justification has reduced the disability to the extent of 5% and awarded meager sum of Rs. 23,400/- towards future loss of income. 3. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company has supported the Award made by the Tribunal and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 4. In the instant case the appellant claimant had produced before the Tribunal the injury certificate Ex. 4, in which four injuries of minor and serious nature were mentioned. The appellant had also produced disability certificate showing the disability to the extent of 15%, however had not examined the concerned doctor who had issued the said certificate. It is true that normally Courts should not summon the medical professional to give evidence, unless it is must, as observed by the Apex Court in case of Pt. Parmanand Katara vs. U.O.I. A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 2039, however the burden of proving the contents of the disability certificate lies on the claimant for which the claimant has to adduce the evidence in accordance with the Evidence Act. It is also settled legal position that every permanent disability arising from injuries do not result in loss of earning capacity. Parmanand Katara vs. U.O.I. A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 2039, however the burden of proving the contents of the disability certificate lies on the claimant for which the claimant has to adduce the evidence in accordance with the Evidence Act. It is also settled legal position that every permanent disability arising from injuries do not result in loss of earning capacity. In this regard, beneficial reference of the decision of the Apex Court, in case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another ACJ 2011(1) 1 = 2011(1) CCR 71 (SC), need to be made, in which the Apex Court has laid down certain principles for determination of loss of future earnings of the injured, with reference to the extent of his permanent disablement. In view of the legal position settled by the Apex Court, this Court does not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the contents of disability certificate should have been believed by the Tribunal, even though the concerned doctor has not been examined by the appellant claimant and that the loss of future income should be awarded accordingly. In the judgment delivered by this Court, relied upon by the learned counsel, the question was with regard to the Inquest Report in case of death , and the Court had not examined the issue whether the loss of future income was proved by the claimant or not. The Allahabad High Court had also relied upon the said judgment of Rajasthan High Court, and therefore, it is also not helpful to the appellant. 5. In the instant case, the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the appellant to the extent of 3,000/- p.m. as there was no evidence produced by him with regard to his income. The Tribunal has also rightly considered the future loss of income as a result of the injuries sustained by the appellant by holding that the appellant had not produced any evidence to show that the appellant would suffer loss to the extent of 15% because of the injuries sustained by him. It is needless to say that the compensation in Motor Accident Cases should not be either a bonanza or windfall for the claimant and that the Tribunals should award just compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is needless to say that the compensation in Motor Accident Cases should not be either a bonanza or windfall for the claimant and that the Tribunals should award just compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is also needless to say that the claimant in order to seek just compensation has to prove the income as well as the permanent disability by adducing cogent evidence and in absence thereof, the Tribunal has to award just compensation which has been awarded in the instant case. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there being no perversity or illegality in the “Award made by the Tribunal, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is , therefore, dismissed.