Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2502 (RAJ)

Rajendra Singh v. Kailash Chandra Garg

2019-09-17

SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 11.10.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation amount. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in taking the disability of the appellant as 50%, whereas, permanent disability of the appellant had been determined as 60% vide disability certificate Exhibit-14. Compensation had not been granted to the appellant towards loss of future prospects. Hence, the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal was liable to be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3, has opposed the appeal. 4. Appellant had filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor-vehicle accident which had occurred on 28.12.2008. 5. The question that requires consideration in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation liable to be received by the appellant. 6. Although, as per the Exhibit-14 (disability certificate), appellant was aged about 18 years, but it had been pleaded by the appellant in the claim petition that he was aged 20 years at the time of the accident. Hence, the age of the appellant is taken as 20 years at the time of the accident. 7. Keeping in view the age of the appellant, appropriate multiplier to work out the amount of compensation has been rightly taken by the Tribunal as 18'. 8. Exhibit-14 is the Disability Certificate issued by the medical Board of Doctors. As per the same, appellant has suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 60%. The said certificate has been issued by the medical Board of Doctors. Hence, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the same. Thus, the Tribunal has erred in treating the disability of the appellant as 50% especially when there is no evidence to the contrary in this regard. Accordingly, permanent disability suffered by the appellant is taken as 60%. Appellant had suffered amputation of right leg below knee. 9. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record with regard to the income of the appellant. Hence, the same was liable to be taken as per the minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time. Accordingly, permanent disability suffered by the appellant is taken as 60%. Appellant had suffered amputation of right leg below knee. 9. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record with regard to the income of the appellant. Hence, the same was liable to be taken as per the minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time. Thus, keeping in view the minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time, Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the appellant as Rs.2,600/- per month. 10. Thus, appellant would be entitled to receive Rs.2,600/- x 12 x 18 x 60% = Rs.3,36,960/- by way of compensation vis- -vis permanent disability suffered by him. Appellant would be further entitled to receive an addition of 40% of the said amount towards loss of his future earnings/prospects and the said amount comes to Rs.1,34,784/-. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had remained admitted in the hospital for 57 days. Hence, appellant would be entitled to receive Rs.28,500/- towards hospitalization expenses. 12. Admittedly, sum total of medical bills proved on record with regard to the expenses incurred by the appellant on his treatment are to the tune of Rs.31,020/-. Appellant would be further entitled to receive Rs.15,000/- towards transportation expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards special diet etc. 13. Keeping in view the permanent disability suffered by the appellant and the fact that the appellant might need assistance of an artificial limb to do his day to day work, appellant would be further entitled to receive Rs.6,00,000/- by way of compensation towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and artificial limb etc. 14. Thus, appellant would be entitled to receive, in all, Rs.3,36,960/- + Rs.1,34,784/- + Rs.31,020/- + Rs.28,500/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.6,00,000/- = Rs.11,61,264/- by way of compensation. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 11.10.2017, is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to receive Rs.11,61,264/- by way of compensation instead of Rs.3,91,820/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain unchanged. It is further ordered that the enhanced amount of compensation be invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts with some nationalized bank, initially for a period of three years and the interest accrued on the deposit shall be paid to the appellant Rajendra Singh S/o Tursi on monthly basis. Remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain unchanged. It is further ordered that the enhanced amount of compensation be invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts with some nationalized bank, initially for a period of three years and the interest accrued on the deposit shall be paid to the appellant Rajendra Singh S/o Tursi on monthly basis. Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, District Bharatpur, in the interest of the appellant shall invest the amount in Fixed Deposit Receipts in the name of the appellant in some nationalized Bank. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Bharatpur, shall further apprise the appellant regarding the amount which has been granted to him by way of enhancement and the fact that the enhanced amount shall be invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts in some nationalized Bank for his benefit.