Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 157 (RAJ)

Chandra Ram Gurjar v. Ismail

2023-01-12

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2023
ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.08.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.) No.2, Beawar, District Ajmer (for short 'the tribunal'), whereby a sum of Rs.3,50,700/-has been awarded as a compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant (for short 'the claimant') submitted that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding lesser compensation. Learned counsel for the claimant also submitted that as per permanent disability certificate, the claimant had received 80% permanent disability on account of amputated injury but the tribunal wrongly considered 40% of disability. Learned counsel for the claimant also submitted that claimant was doing milk dairy business and his income was 25000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimant also submitted that the tribunal has awarded lesser amount towards the pain and suffering and towards the future medical treatment. So, order of the tribunal be modified. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimant and submitted that the tribunal wrongly calculated the income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that at that time, prevailing minimum wages was Rs.2190/- per month. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that there is no proof regarding income of the claimant. So, minimum wages were to be considered as income of the claimant. So, appeal be dismissed. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimant as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 5. It is an admitted position that the tribunal had no material to consider the income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month. So, in my considered opinion, income of the claimant be considered as prevailing minimum wages at that time i.e. Rs.2190/- per month. Therefore, income of the claimant is assessed as Rs.2190/- per month i.e. Rs.26280/- per annum. It is also admitted position that as per the disability certificate (Ex.13), claimant had suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 80% but the tribunal wrongly considered it as a 40%. The said disability certificate has been issued by a duly constituted Medical Board. The claimant was examined as AW1 before the tribunal. It is also admitted position that as per the disability certificate (Ex.13), claimant had suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 80% but the tribunal wrongly considered it as a 40%. The said disability certificate has been issued by a duly constituted Medical Board. The claimant was examined as AW1 before the tribunal. In his statement, he categorically stated that at the time of accident he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by milk dairy and rachka business. He further stated that he was having 13 buffalows which were being cared by him and he was selling their milk. On account of amputation of his land in the accident, he had to sell his all buffalows and in the absence of his leg, he can not do agriculture and dairy business and he has become permanently disabled. The insurance company did not produce any evidence in rebuttal thereof. In the absence of any contrary evidence available on record, in my considered view the injury caused to the claimant was in relation to his whole body particularly when the leg of the claimant was amputated and he had become permanently disabled. Keeping in view the fact that the claimant had suffered 80% permanent disability, therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , an addition of 40% of the aforesaid income is to be added towards future prospects of the claimant. Thus, the annual income of the claimant comes to Rs.29,434/- (21024 + 8410). Keeping in view the age of the claimant at the time of accident, multiplier of 17 would be applied to work out the compensation. In this way, the amount of compensation comes to 5,00,378/- (29434 x 17). The claimant, in addition to the above, is liable to be granted Rs.50,000/- towards the pain and sufferings instead of Rs.6,000/-as awarded by the tribunal and Rs.50,000/- towards past and future medical treatment. Thus, total amount of compensation receivable by the claimant comes to Rs.6,00,378/- (500378 + 50000 + 50000). 6. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Impugned award dated 23.08.2011 is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation receivable by the claimant is Rs.6,00,378/- instead of Rs.3,50,700/- as awarded by the tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall be the same.