// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2764/2006 Satish Son of Ramsnehi Versus Kishor and Others Date of Order ::: 03.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Anirudh Singh, Advocate, for Shri Jitendra Mitruka, Counsel for appellant Shri Manish Gupta and Shri Karanpal Singh, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was heard finally and the same is being disposed of. The claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injury sustained by him in a motor-accident took place on 18th June, 2005 and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 15th June, 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area), Bharatpur, in M.A.C. No.238/2005, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs.28,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from // 2 // the date of claim application i.e. 03.08.2005, in his favour. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is inadequate and the same is liable to be enhanced. He contended that the appellant remained admitted in the hospital for 11 days and he was operated, therefore, looking to the nature of injury sustained by him, the amount of compensation cannot be said to be adequate and the same may be enhanced. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned Award and contended that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable, and no interference in it is called for. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Award as well as the record of the Tribunal. As per Exhibit-9, the injury-report, the appellant sustained one injury. As per X-ray Report Exhibit-10 there was a fracture and the appellant remained admitted in the hospital for about 11 days. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute that neither operation-note or // 3 // admission/discharge ticket nor permanent disability certificate have been produced on the record before the Tribunal on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the appellant remained admitted in the hospital and he produced the medical bills of Rs.18,000/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.28,000/- in his favour. The permanent disability certificate has not been placed on the record, therefore, it cannot be assumed that the appellant's working capacity has been reduced in any manner whatsoever so as to award any compensation under the head of loss of income. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the present case appears to be just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//