1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 410 of 1996 SAWAI SINGH V/S BABU LAL Mr. DEEPAK MENARIA for Mr. PRADEEP SHAH, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. UCS SINGHVI for Mr. RK MEHTA, for the respondent Date of Order : 18.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the injured claimant claiming enhancement of compensation awarded in his claim petition being 32 of 1995 decided by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu dt. 22.5.1996 awarding a total sum of Rs. 55,168.95. Since in this appeal, the only question is about enhancement of compensation, and there is no cross appeal, or cross objection for challenging the findings on the aspect of negligence etc., I need not detain myself on other aspects. The learned Tribunal found that the claimant has produced medical bills, and has pleaded that he had to 2 remain on leave from 5.1.95 to 7.5.95, and then from 8.5.95 to 4.10.95, and has also noticed that this evidence of the claimant has not been controverted. The learned Tribunal has awarded the entire amount of expenditure incurred in medical treatment being Rs. 5168.95. Then, a sum of Rs. 10,500 was claimed for travelling expenditure for which the receipts Ex. 98 to 105 were produced but then those receipts were not believed and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only has been awarded on the ground that nobody has been examined to prove the receipts while the driver could have very well been examined. Then, regarding amount claimed on account of leave for 273 days, in that regard also Rs. 10,000/- had been awarded, and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been awaded for nutritional diet, and Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded for future mental pain and agony, as it has been found that the injured is very much continuing in service as was continuing earlier, and that on account of injuries he has not suffered any future loss of income. It has also been considered, that regarding leave, firstly it is not established as to what was the loss suffered by him, as the salary has not been proved apart, from the fact that Rs. 10,000/- has already been awarded. In my view, even after going through the entire evidence, and documents on record, so far as transportation charges is concerned, I am told that distance between Bikaner and Sardarsahar is about 110 Kms. one way, and 3 looking to the prevailing rate of hire charges for the vehicle, considering the number of trips said to have been undertaken as appearing from the documents, as produced by the claimant, in my view, it cannot be said that award of Rs. 5,000/- on this count is inadequate so as to require interference. Then, regarding loss of income suffered on account of taking leave, of course it does appear that from the date of accident till 4.10.95 the appellant was on leave but then firstly Rs. 10,000/- have already been awarded under this head, and secondly it is not established that he did suffer any actual loss of income on account of his having taken leave, as under the Rules, the employee is entitled to medical leave without any loss of income, and then other leaves are admissible without any loss of salary. Therefore, the amount awarded under this head also does not require any interference. Then, regarding permanent disablement, Rs. 20,000/- have already been awarded, and it is clear that he is continuing in service as hitherto fore, with no adverse effect on income. Thus, considering the totality of circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the compensation as awarded. 4 The appeal thus has no force, and the same is, therefore, dismissed. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/