HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No.: 144 of 2004 Decided on: 3.7.2009 Raj Pal ………Appellant. Versus Pawan Kumar Banial and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For respondent No.3: Mr.G.D. Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, (here-in-after referred to as the learned Tribunal), on 24.2.2004. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant met with an accident and suffered injuries, while going in a bus owned by respondent No.1 and being driven by respondent No.2. The Insurance Company was impleaded as respondent No.3. The appellant had suffered ___________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - disability and had claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.15.00 lacs. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the extent of Rs.65,000/- under all the heads. The appeal has been preferred by the appellant for enhancement of the award so passed by the learned Tribunal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone though the record of the case. There is no dispute that the petitioner suffered injuries in the accident and there are findings of the learned Tribunal holding that respondent No.2 was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently. The learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company has not disputed any of the facts except that he has urged that the appellant has been awarded adequate compensation which does not deserve to be enhanced. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- for medical treatment in favour of the claimant as against the claim of Rs.30,000/-. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant had not filed any medical bills to prove that he actually spent a sum of Rs.30,000/-, as claimed by him. Therefore, a sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded under this head for medical treatment by the learned Tribunal does not need any enhancement. - 3 - The second head under which the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- observing that the appellant was entitled to this amount on account of his lay off for a period of four months. The learned Tribunal had observed that the petitioner stood admitted in the District Hospital on 9.2.2001 and was discharged on 7.3.2001. Thus, the petitioner remained in the hospital for a period of one month. He had also claimed that he remained out of his work for a period of six months and had claimed that his income was Rs.15,000/- per month. The appellant alleged that he was working as an agriculturist and his income from all sources, including agricultural sources, was Rs.15,000/- per month. He also alleged that his occupation was that of a mechanic of vehicles and of an agriculturist. He did not lead any evidence in support of his assertions that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month while working as a mechanic and as an agriculturist. However, the fact remains that he had not been able to work for a period of one month and he may have been on bed for sometime thereafter also. Therefore, a sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded under this head deserves to be enhanced to Rs.10,000/- and the same is enhanced accordingly. The next ground is that the appellant has been awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical pain, shock and sufferings. The amount of Rs.10,000/-, awarded for the period the petitioner remained in the hospital and suffered 5% disability, cannot be said to be inadequate and calls for no enhancement. - 4 - Coming to the last head under which the appellant was awarded compensation of Rs.35,000/- is on account of loss of future income as well as loss of expectation of life etc. The learned Tribunal has not given any reasons as to how this amount was calculated. Even if the income of the petitioner is taken as an ordinary labourer, it could be assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month and keeping in view the disability of 5%, there was monthly loss of Rs.150/-. Applying the multiplier of 17, as per the schedule given in the Act, as amended, keeping the age of the appellant as 25, the multiplier of 17 should have been applied and, therefore, by calculating this amount, the compensation comes to less than Rs.35,000/-, as awarded by the learned Tribunal which calls for no interference. For the present, the interest rate being granted in such petitions is at the rate of 9%. I accordingly hold that the appellant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the petition till deposit by the respondent/Insurance Company. In view of the above discussion, the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.70,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit, alongwith costs of the appeal. The appeal is allowed accordingly in the aforesaid terms. July 3, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.