1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- 1. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 329 of 1997 SMT. SITA & ANR V/S MAHAVEER SINGH & ORS 2. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 317 of 1997 RAJU @ RAJENDRA V/S MAHAVEER SINGH & ORS 3. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 328 of 1997 HANUMAN V/S MAHAVEER SINGH & ORS Mr. RAJESH PANWAR, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. SANJEEV JOHARI, for the respondent Date of Order : 5.9.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- These three appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned Tribunal deciding three claim petitions. Appeal No. 329 arises out of claim no. 25 which is a claim lodged for compensation on account of death of Kalu. Appeal No. 328 arises out of claim no. 26, and Appeal No. 317 arises out of claim no. 39, and both these claims were filed for compensation for personal injuries received in the accident. All the three claims arise out of the same 2 accident. In view of the above, all these three appeals are being decided by this common order. The necessary facts are that on 27.11.1993 the three victims were travelling in Jeep No. RST-7051 from Ajmer to Deedwana. On the way when the Jeep reached Shyampura turn the delinquent truck came from opposite side being driven carelessly and at fast speed dashed against the jeep resulting into the victims sustaining injuries including death of Kalu Khan for which F.I.R. No. 146/93 was registered at Police Station Parbatsar. Since the only controversy involved in the present appeals is about quantum of compensation awarded, as according to the claimants the compensation awarded is inadequate, therefore, I need not go into other aspects of the matter, and I may now take up the quantum of compensation in each of the appeals individually. Appeal No. 329 In this case according to the claimants as projected during trial that the deceased was earning Rs. 4000/- per month by working as a Jeep driver, and was 22 years of age. The claimants were parents and widow, however, others have died and now only widow survives. The learned Tribunal found that in the claim petition the 3 income of the deceased was disclosed to be Rs. 2600/- per month, while during evidence it has been increased to Rs. 4,000/-. Then, the employer Shokat Ali has not been produced, nor the driving licence of the deceased has been produced. Likewise, it has been considered that even in the statement of Shokat Ali recorded as Ex. 1 there is no mention about Kalu being employed as driver by him. Thus, evidence of income about Rs. 4,000/- was disbelieved and income was assessed at Rs. 1200/- per month, and from out of this Rs. 400/- has been deducted as personal expenditure and the dependency was assessed at Rs. 800/- per month, and employing a multiplier of 10, the compensation has been assessed. Aruging the appeal it is contended by the learned counsel that the assessment of dependency made by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate, and at the same time the multiplier employed is also grossly inadequate even on the parameters, as are being followed in recent trend of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the impugned order. I have gone through the pleadings and evidence. The only evidence in the present case comprises of the statement of claimant Sita and Rehman. Rehman has deposed 4 that the deceased was being paid a salary of Rs. 2000/- per month, and was being separately paid other allowances, and was thus earning more than Rs. 4,000/-, and he was contributing Rs. 3,000/- per month to the family. Then, Sita claimant has also deposed that the deceased was receiving a salary of Rs. 2000/- per month apart from other allowances totaling to about Rs. 4000/- per month, and was contributing Rs. 3,000/- per month to the family. In cross examination she has deposed that the deceased was spending Rs. 1000-1500 on himself. However, she has maintained that still he was paying Rs. 3000/- per month in the family. In my view, on the face of the pleadings taken in the claim petition, the claim projected during evidence is obviously exaggerated. In that view of the matter the bare ipse dixit cannot be taken on the face value. The learned Tribunal has rightly considered that neither Shokat the employer has been examined, nor the alleged driving licence of Kalu has been produced. In such circumstances, I do not find any error in the assessment of income, and consequent dependency as done by the learned Tribunal. However, so far as the multiplier employed by the learned Tribunal is concerned, that in my view, is grossly inadequate inasmuch as in view of the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jashuben & Ors. reported in JT 2008(2) SC 415 and New 5 India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt.Shanti Pathak & Ors. reported in JT 2007(9) SC 318, where in case of deceased being of the age of 30 plus the multiplier of 13 has been employed, here the deceased being 22 years of age, in my view, the appropriate multiplier to be employed should be 14. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs. 96000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,34,400/-. Accordingly the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal being Rs. 96,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 1,34,400/-. The other awards and other terms of award are maintained. Appeal No. 328 In this case according to the claimant Hanuman on account of accident his head was seriously damaged, and he received injuries on ribs and he was taken to Parbatsar Government Hospital, where 48 stitches were put on his head, and was referred to Ajmer, but on his own risk he remained at Parbatsar hospital, and remained hospitalised from 27.11.93 to 5.12.1993, and alleges to have remained unconscious for 17 hours. The claimant has produced the injury report Ex. 5, permanent disablement certificate Ex.9, and discharge certificate Ex.13. Considering the medical bills Ex. 14 and the above documents learned Tribunal found that the injured has received only four injuries, and according to the X-Ray report all injuries 6 are simple. The total medical expenditure incurred on medicines is shown to be Rs. 1928/-, and according to the disability certificate Ex. 9, there is a disfiguration of face on account of scar, but then in this certificate it has not been mentioned as to what is the percentage of disfiguration, and that Ex.5, 6 and 9 do not show that the accident would adversely effect his future income at all. Thus, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2000/- for medical expenditure, Rs. 1000/- for loss of income, and Rs. 1000/- for mental pain and agony, Rs. 1000/- for transportation and Rs. 25,000/- as general damages for the injuries, and alleged permanent disability. It is significant to note that the version given by the claimant is seriously exaggerated, inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show either that the victim was administered 48 stitches, or that he remained unconscious for 17 hours, as alleged. In my view, looking to the certificate Ex. 9 and the injury report and X-Ray report, it cannot be said that the overall assessment of compensation made by the learned Tribunal requires any interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction. In that view of the matter this appeal is dismissed. Appeal No. 317 In this case according to the claimant he sustained injury on the left side of the head, C.T. Scan 7 examination and X-Ray was conducted in Jaipur where he remained hospitalised from 27.11.1993 to 10.12.1993. He sustained fracture on head, and by the injury of the head his position became that of like a paralytic one, the movement of one leg and hand was obstructed, he felt inconvenience in left hand, and left leg does not move, and he feels difficulty in walking, and also in cycling. The learned Tribunal considered Ex. 9 being injury report, and Ex. 8 X-ray report. According to Ex.9 there were three injuries in all, and out of them two were simple and one was advised for X-Ray. After X-ray in Ex. 8 that injury was also found to be simple. Then, in permanent disability certificate being Ex. 11, the victim is certified to have suffered 25% of hemiparesis, and on account of disfiguration of face he has suffered 5% permanent disablement. The learned Tribunal also considered Discharge Certificate Ex. 12 and C.T.Scan report Ex. 13, and found that the claimant has produced receipt of Rs. 4200/- having been spent on transportation, and the statement of expenditure on medicine amounting to Rs. 6936/- against which the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4000/- and 7000/- respectively. Then, the claimant has claimed to be earning Rs. 4000/- per month but in cross examination he admits that he sells news-paper worth Rs. 450/- and gets commission of 20%. Thus, it was found that the income does not exceed Rs. 2700/- per month. With this the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- for permanent disablement 8 and Rs. 1000/- for mental pain and agony and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded for loss of income. Thus, a total award of Rs. 57,000/- has been made. In my view, looking to the permanent disablement, the amount awarded under the head of pain and agony and permanent disablement, so also loss of income is required to be collectively enhanced by another sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, and the total compensation awarded being Rs. 57,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 87,000. The other terms of award are maintained. In the result the Appeal No. 329 is allowed, and the amount of compensation of Rs. 96,000/- as awarded is enhanced to Rs. 1,34,4000/-; Appeal No. 328 is dismissed; while the Appeal No. 317 is partly allowed, and the compensation of Rs. 57,000/- as awarded is enhanced to Rs. 87,000/-. The other terms of the award are maintained. The parties shall bear their own costs. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/