1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1448/2004 KAILASH SINGH V/s MADAN SINGH RAWAT & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :- MAY 29, 2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri Sandeep Mathur, for appellant. Smt. Chitra Goyal, for United India Insurance Company Limited. 1. The case has come up for admission. Counsel of both the parties agree to dispose of the case at admission stage. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the miscellaneous appeal. 3. This civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by injured Kailash Singh for enhancement of compensation against the award dated May 29, 2004 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.204/2002, whereby a sum of Rs.72,000/- has been awarded by way of compensation to the claimant-appellant. The only challenge under the appeal pertains to the quantum of compensation. 2 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding any amount by way of loss of earning of the injured who sustained 25% permanent disability on account of fracture of L-3 vertebrae and on account of disability his vision has been diminished and the fingers of hand of the injured are not working properly and and he cannot perform any manual work of stone cutting by which he was earning Rs.160/- per day. Learned counsel further submitted that right hand cannot be used for any manual work and the award amount is on lower side. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant further submitted that on account of this grievous injury she was found with 25% permanent disability resulting in difficultly in doing manual work. The appellant was rendered handicapped for whole of the life as well as his livelihood. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation without considering the various factors based on concept of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as 3 delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others (1995 ACJ 366. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the award in the instant case has been passed by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal and calls for no interference. In view of the rival submissions and going on through the impugned award as well as record of the case, it is revealed that the injured is 25 years of age and was working as mason and the learned Tribunal has failed to award compensation on account of loss of earning. In view of the evidence led, it is revealed that the injured was earning Rs.80/- per day by way of a skilled labourer and the amount of earning can be calculated by applying appropriate multiplier of 18. Thus amount comes as : Rs.80 x 30 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 5,18,400/- and 25% of said amount comes as Rs.1,29,600/- plus Rs.72,000/-. 6. Accordingly the award is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation of Rs.72,000/- is 4 substituted by Rs.2,01,600/- from the date of the appeal i.e. 28.7.2004. The amount so increased shall entail interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the order to be paid within three months failing which interest @ 9% p.a. shall be payable. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with the above modification. (Guman Singh), J. chauhan/