1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2716/04 Smt. Pooran Devi vs. Shri Onkarmal & Ors. Date of order : 23/4/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri K.N. Tiwari for the appellant. Shri N.L. Verma for Shri S.R. Jatav for the respondent. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been preferred by the injured claimant Pooran Devi seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to her by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.39,569/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident. Shri K.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even though the appellant was aged 60 years, the Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the fracture of tibia bone of her leg, as in advanced stage like this, recovery for such fractures is very difficult. It was argued that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount for the loss of income and the appellant though stated in 2 the claim petition that she was a labourer, the Tribunal has altogether ignored that aspect. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant remained hospitalized for 11 days even then the Tribunal omitted to consider that aspect and merely awarded a sum of Rs.22,000/- collectively for permanent disability of 3% as also for pain and mental agony. The medical expenses have also been not awarded to the extent they were actually incurred. Shri N.L. Verma for Shri Sukh Ram Jatav opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellant was aged 60 years and there was no proof of the fact that she was earning anywhere, even then the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.22,000/- as compensation. It was argued that if notional income of Rs.15,000/- is accepted and on that basis basis award of 3% disability applying the multiplier of 5 would hardly come to Rs.2250/- whereas the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.22,000/-. It was argued that whatever medical bills were submitted by the appellant were fully reimbursed and apart from that a sum of Rs.8,000/- was awarded 3 for transportation charges and nutritious food etc. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award, I find that the age of the appellant at the time of accident was 60 years and even as per statutory formula given in Schedule Second to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier of 5 would be applied to such case, even though no proof of income was furnished by the appellant, taking the income of the appellant on notional basis, it should have been hardly Rs.2250/-. The Tribunal apart from a sum of Rs.22,000/- towards disability as also for pain and suffering, also additional awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- for transportation charges and nutritious food and separately Rs.569/- for medical expenses. In totality, I do not find that the award suffers from any error so as to warrant interference by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/