Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1446 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar Meena v. Gheesa Lal

2022-05-06

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant (injured) against the judgment and award dated 30.06.2011 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 302/2011 (629/2004) whereby an amount of Rs. 3,11,000/- was awarded as compensation under various heads on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 18.07.2004. 2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimant-appellant and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,11,000/- (including medical bills, food, pain and suffering and loss of amenities) in favour of the claimant-appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of accident, the injured was 14 years of age and he has sustained injuries in the accident and was operated on 25.07.2004 and due to injuries sustained by him in the accident, his left leg was amputated and because of that he sustained 70% permanent disability. 4. Learned counsel further submits that while assessing the income of the injured, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the injured at a very lower side i.e. Rs. 1,000/- annually. He further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & Ors. reported in MACD 2013 (SC) 289 has determined the notional income of the child aged 14 years as Rs. 30,000/- annually. Learned counsel further submits that the said ratio has also been adopted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Master Sampat Singh v. Arjun Singh & Ors. in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 641/2008 decided on 23.11.2017. 5. Learned counsel further submits that no amount towards future prospects has been awarded in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . Learned counsel therefore, prayed that recomputation of the award in the present case may be done in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and also in the light of judgment of this Court in the case of Master Sampat Singh (supra). 6. Learned counsel therefore, prayed that recomputation of the award in the present case may be done in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and also in the light of judgment of this Court in the case of Master Sampat Singh (supra). 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that this is a second round of litigation. Earlier also, this Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the matter on the point of quantum and the quantum/compensation of Rs. 3,11,000/- determined by the Tribunal is already on higher side which does not require any interference. He further submits that the accident occurred in the year 2004 and a reasonable amount of compensation of Rs. 3,11,000/- has already been awarded, which should not be enhanced after lapse of a long time. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar reported in 2011 ACJ 1 (SC), wherein it has been held that when the injuries sustained in the accident do not result in loss of earning capacity then the exorbitant amount of compensation should not be granted. He further submits that though the disability certificate (Ex. 14) was produced on the record by the injured, but the doctor, who issued the certificate has not been examined before the Court in the witness box and no reliance can be placed on such disability certificate. 8. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar @ Raju v. Yudhvir Singh & Anr. reported in 2008 ACJ 2131 . 9. Lastly, he argued that the that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition has rightly taken into consideration all the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of the evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment dated 30.06.2011 does not call for any interference by this Court. However, he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants with respect to recomputation of the award in the present case in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Kishan Gopal (supra) and Master Sampat Singh (supra). 10. However, he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants with respect to recomputation of the award in the present case in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Kishan Gopal (supra) and Master Sampat Singh (supra). 10. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone through the judgment dated 30.06.2011 as well as the other relevant documents available on record. 11. Admittedly, the injured Ashok Kumar was 14 years of age at the time of accident and in the aforesaid accident, he has sustained several injuries and his left leg was amputated, but without any basis, the Tribunal has determined his income as Rs. 1,000/- annually. 12. In view of the judgments referred above in the cases of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Master Sampat Singh (supra), the notional income of the injured of the age of 14 years, should have been treated as Rs. 30,000/- annually and no reason is there before the Tribunal to assess the income of the injured as Rs. 1,000/- annually. It is also not in dispute that the Tribunal has not extended the benefit of future prospects. Hence, looking to the aforementioned fact the amount to the extent of 40% is required to be added towards future prospects in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, the award towards the loss of income is recomputed as under:- Annual income Rs. 30,000/- x 70/100 = 21,000/- Add 40 % towards future prospects Rs.21,000/- + 8400/- = 29,400/- Multiplier to be applied 15 Rs.29,400 X 15 = 4,41,000/- Compensation towards loss of income Rs.4,41,000/- Compensation awarded by Tribunal towards loss of income Rs.1,88,000/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 4,41,000/- - Rs.1,88,000/- Rs. 2,53,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 2,53,000/- 13. In view of the above, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 2,53,000/-. Insurance company is directed to pay additional amount of Rs. 2,53,000/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall carry 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. 14. The learned Tribunal shall disburse Rs. 2,53,000/-. Insurance company is directed to pay additional amount of Rs. 2,53,000/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall carry 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. 14. The learned Tribunal shall disburse Rs. 50,000/- in the Saving Bank Account of the claimant and the balance amount of the enhanced compensation be invested in any Nationalised Bank for a period of three years and interest accrued on the deposit shall be paid to the appellant-claimant on monthly basis. 15. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 16. All pending application(s) stand disposed of. 17. Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.