[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 48/1998 RAJENDRA MALHOTRA Vs. DEVENDRA SINGH & ORS. Date: 17.03.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Sandeep Mathur for the claimant/appellant. Mr. Vinod Tyagi for the respondent Insurance Company. **** The present civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of the compensation awarded vide impugned Award dated 13.10.97 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.A.C. Case No. 360/1993, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 72,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant/ appellant. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.04.93 the appellant and his wife were going on a motor cycle bearing No. RJF-7746. He was driving the motor cycle on right side of the road with normal speed and when they reached on the road behind Adarsh Vidhya Mandir School, a jeep bearing No. RJ-14-G-7172 driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit the motor cycle of the appellant, due to which the appellant and his wife sustained [2] serious injuries and were taken to the hospital. At the time of the accident, the appellant was about 40 years of age and was employed in a private limited company from where he was getting monthly salary of Rs. 500/-. In the accident, the appellant sustained serious injuries all over his body and there was compound fracture in his right leg. He remained 5-6 days in SMS Hospital where operation was conducted and thereafter he remained for six months with plaster. Again he was admitted in SMS Hospital and was again operated and remained with plaster for about 9-1/2 months thereafter. Even today, the appellant is facing difficulty in walking, sitting, cross legged and his leg has been shortened by 1/2” and his permanent disability has been assessed by the medical board as 19.07%. The case of the claimant/appellant is that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal has not rightly considered the earning of the appellant and also not considered the permanent disability received by him as well as the expenses incurred on the treatment and has only awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 72,000/-, which cannot said to be just and reasonable and required to be enhanced. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company submitted that the accident took place in the year 1993 and the [3] Tribunal has not only considered the age and earning of the appellant but also considered the permanent disability assessed as 19.07% and considering Rs. 3000/- as earning of the appellant per month, awarded Rs. 10,000/- for loss of income, considering the bills which were produced by the appellant by which he has incurred Rs. 10,410/- on his treatment awarded Rs. 15,000/- under the head of transportation and medicines, Rs. 16,000/- towards physical and mental agony, Rs. 1,000/- for the expenses incurred on the repair of motor cycle and considering the permanent disability which was assessed as 19.07%, awarded Rs. 30,000/- under this head and thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs. 72,000/- in favour of the claimant/appellant vide impugned Award dated 13.10.97, which appears to be just and reasonable. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the relevant record as well as the impugned Award dated 13.10.97 passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal while passing the impugned Award has not only considered the permanent disability of 19.07% received by the appellant but also rightly considered the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000/- per month and whatever medical bills submitted by the appellant towards his treatment and medicines, the same has been [4] awarded by the Tribunal and after considering each and every aspect, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the tune of Rs. 72,000/- and the same requires no interference by this Court. No case of enhancement of compensation is made out. Consequently, the civil misc. appeal fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Record be sent back. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/ (Hearing)