IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.4914/2008 Thandi v/s Pukhraj & Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 11th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri H.K. Sharma, for the appellant. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the appeal as well as merits of the appeal also. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and also the reasons assigned in the application, I am satisfied that the appellant has made out a sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, stands allowed. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in motor accident took place on 14.3.2004 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 25.11.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawaimadhpur, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,78,958/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim application i.e. 28.3.2005 upto the date of payment, in his favour as under :- Rs.1,00,000/- as lump sum amount for 28% permanent disability, Rs.3,000/- for three simple injuries, Rs.9,000/- for loss of income for 18 days during which the appellant remained admitted in hospital, Rs.56,958/- towards medical bills, Rs.10,000/- for transportation charges. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is a meager amount looking to the nature of injuries and percentage of permanent disability, therefore, the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced and may be enhanced accordingly. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has considered the statement of AW 1 Thandi Ram and also the other documentary evidence. As per injury report Ex.7, the appellant sustained 7 injuries. The injury No.7 was described as simple in nature and remaining six injuries were referred for x- ray advise. As per x-ray report Ex. 8 , the injury No. 1 and 4 were found to be simple in nature. Remaining four injuries numbers as 2, 3, 5 and 6, were found to be grievous in nature. Ex. 13, permanent disability certificate was placed on record wherein 28% permanent disability of the appellant was mentioned. After considering the oral submissions and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded the total amount of compensation of Rs.1,78,958/- under the different heads as per details mentioned above. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v/s Mahadeo Shetty reported in (2003)(7) SCC 197 has held that Tribunal is required to pass an award u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which appears to be “jut.” Every mode or method adopted for assessment of compensation has to be considered in the back ground of “just” compensation which is pivotal consideration. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case, is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. Chauhan/