Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 64 (RAJ)

Surja Ram Jangid v. Surendra Singh

2012-01-04

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment/award dated 10th November, 2009 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur passed an award of Rs.2,28,575/- in favour of the appellant-injured Surja Ram and against the respondents Surendra Singh & Others, together with 9% interest to be paid on the said amount with effect from the date of filing an application till the amount of award is actually reaslised. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the appellant sustained 35-37% permanent disability and he sustained fracture of Tibia and Fibula. He was working in Saudi Arabia and his earning was Rs.10,000/- per month which stands proved by his statement given in his cross examination subjected by the insurance Company. This factum of Rs.10,000/- per month income was not rebutted. Hence, the unrebutted evidence with regard to his income, is liable to be relied upon. If that is so, the income of the petitioner is required to be reconsidered and the amount of award is liable to be re-reckoned. 3. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the impugned award, it is noticed that the appellant is found to have utterly failed to prove his income of Rs.10,000/- per month as claimed by him. Since the appellant failed to prove income of Rs.10,000/- per month, the learned Tribunal is found to have considered the notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month for the purpose of computation of the amount of compensation. It is true that the appellant sustained fracture of Tibia and Fibula during the accident and he got 33.87% permanent disability, but this fact is found to have been considered by the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal is further found to have critically analyzed all these facts and circumstances of the case adlongum and while considering Rs.3,000/- to be the notional income of the appellant, rightly reckoned the loss of income to the tune of Rs.1,34,125/-. The learned Tribunal is also found to have considered other heads also and thus, an amount of Rs.2,28,575/- is found to have been awarded in favour of the appellant. The impugned order is found to be just and proper and suffers from no infirmity. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order and thus the appeal being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed. 4. The impugned order is found to be just and proper and suffers from no infirmity. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order and thus the appeal being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed. 4. For the reasons stated above, the civil misc. appeal fails and the same being bereft of any merits stands dismissed.