SBCMA No.702/2008 Indeer Mal Vs. Mohd. Yakub & Ors. 1 SBCMA No.702/2008 Indeer Mal Vs. Mohd. Yakub & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 11.12.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Parikshit Nayak, for the appellant. Mr.Anil Bachhawat, for the respondent no.2. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved against the low award of the compensation vide award dated 18th March, 2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara in claim case No.180/2007. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal accepted the income of the appellant to be Rs.8,000/- per month. The medical board of the Government Hospital certified permanent disability of the claimant as 43%. That has also been accepted by the tribunal and monthly loss of the income to the claimant was assessed Rs.3440/- per month but has has been reduced by the tribunal on the plea that the appellant-claimant was SBCMA No.702/2008 Indeer Mal Vs. Mohd. Yakub & Ors. 2 doing agricultural work with the help of servants. It is submitted that the agricultural operation cannot be done by one person and he is required to engage number of labours for agricultural operation. It is submitted therefore, the reduction of 50% of the loss of income of the appellant is absolutely illegal and contrary to the facts of the case by adopting principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another set of facts of the case. It is also submitted that in a case when the property passes on to the claimants they are not denied the compensation on account of loss of income. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company contested the appeal and supported the reason given by the tribunal and pointed out that the tribunal was of the view that the medical board's report is not corroborated by the injury report as there are differences of injuries in medical report and medical board's certificate. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent on this count also and found that in the medical report doctor specifically mentioned his opinion on SBCMA No.702/2008 Indeer Mal Vs. Mohd. Yakub & Ors. 3 the basis of clinical examination and mentioned the possibility of fracture. In clinical examination the doctor can only advise for further examination by obtaining X-ray report etc. Therefore, that cannot be said to be a vague medical report given by the doctor, who clinically examined the patient. In this case, the certificate given by the medical board from the Government Hospital cannot be ignored and when the medical board has certified that appellant suffered 43.5% permanent disability, which has been accepted by the tribunal itself, cannot be rejected for any other purpose. The income which has been accepted by the tribunal, cannot be rejected now when that has not been challenged by anybody. The reduction out of the loss, which claimant sought to the extent of 50% cannot be justified and, therefore, the reduction is set aside. It is held that the appellant suffered loss of Rs.3440/- per month on account of injuries he suffered because of the disability of 43%. In view of the above reason, the compensation amount on this count is enhanced to Rs.3,30,240/- which is SBCMA No.702/2008 Indeer Mal Vs. Mohd. Yakub & Ors. 4 rounded to Rs.3,30,250/-. On this enhanced amount, the appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Rest of the award is maintained. The appeal of the appellant is allowed accordingly. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-