1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1485/1999 (Rajendra Singh Vs. Badam Singh & ors.) Date of Judgment : 04-02-2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr.Sandeep Mathur,for the appellant/s. Mr.Alok Garg, Mr.Abhishek Jain and Mr.Kapil choudhary, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the injured Rajendra Singh for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur vide judgment dated 3.7.1999 whereby a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- was awarded to the injured- appellant by way of compensation for 90% permanent disability sustained by him in the accident. 3. The challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 25% of the amount on account of contributory negligence on the part of the injured-appellant while there was no such negligence on his part. He was driving the scooter on his side and he was 2 dashed by the offending vehicle coming from opposite direction. It is submitted that the age of injured is 38 years while the learned Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 14 which should have been 16 as per second schedule to the M.V.Act. It is further submitted that the while awarding compensation, learned Tribunal has taken into consideration 100% disability of the injured and held that injured was disabled and remained no more in position to do his painting work. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. It is further submitted that it is not a case of amputation of hand but it is a case of disablement only and, as such, disability cannot be taken to be 100%. 6. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that injured was 38 3 years of age at the time of accident and as per second schedule to the M.V.Act, multiplier of 16 should have been adopted instead of 14. As regards the contributory negligence, it is revealed from the record including that of site inspection made that injured was driving the scooter on his own side while the offending vehicle coming from opposite direction came towards the side of scooter and dashed the same causing the accident. Thus there is no evidence to base the conclusion of the learned Tribunal that injured who was driving the scooter also contributed to negligence. It is further revealed that there is no amputation of hand and disability cannot be counted as total permanent disability and it amounts to only permanent disability and disability is found to be 90% only as per the certificate Ex.5. Thus the compensation can be computed as under: 2000x12x16x90/100=3,45,600+4000 (already awarded by the Tribunal on other heads) =3,49,600/- to be awarded in place of Rs.2,55,000. 4 7. Accordingly, appeal of the appellant is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant shall get a sum of Rs.3,49,600 in place of Rs.2,55,000 from the date of appeal i.e. 5.10.1999, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. Record be sent back forthwith. (GUMAN SINGH),J. Srawat/- item no.h-29