1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : Smt. Rami Vs. Babu Lal & Others (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1121/2010) DATE OF JUDGMENT : November 12, 2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS __________________________________________ Mr. Rakesh Arora for the appellant. BY THE COURT : In this miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant has challenged judgment/award dated 27.10.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Addl. District Judge, Nagaur in MAC Case No.72/08 and prayer is made for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The main contention of the appellant is that learned Tribunal has committed an error while allowing only Rs.45,089/- for the injuries which she sustained in the accident. As per facts of the case, in an accident which occurred on 02.09.2006 at about 8 P.M. in the evening, the 2 appellant and other persons who were going in a camel cart Kharnal fair to Nagaur. When they were in the camel cart on the main road of Jodhpur – Nagaur highway, a turbo bearing No.RJ-10/GA – 0586, which was being driven by respondent No.1 Babu Lal, hit the camel cart which resulted into serious injuries being sustained by all the passengers in the camel cart and one Firoz died on the spot. The said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 Babulal. The appellant herself received various injuries upon her body including fracture of bones, out of which, injuries No.1 and 6 reported by the doctor to be grievous and, for treatment, she spent Rs.60,000/-. To prove her case, number of documents were filed. The appellant filed claim of Rs.12,61,000/- and prayed that she remained hospitalised with effect from 02.09.2006 to 07.09.2006 and, then, again from 13.09.2006 to 17.09.2006. The appellant made her claim upon various heads but, according to her, learned Tribunal without taking into consideration the entire evidence on record awarded claim of Rs.45,089/- which is very low amount looking to the injuries sustained by her, therefore, it is prayed that the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal may be 3 modified and amount of compensation may be enhanced to the extent it has been claimed. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. In my opinion, the award which is passed in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal does not require any interference because admittedly three injuries were received in the accident by the appellant out of which two were grievous. Learned Tribunal passed award of medical expenses in the tune of Rs.5,089/- on the basis of medical bills produced by the claimant-appellant. Likewise, while assessing Rs.3,000/- as income of the appellant who is house-wife according to herself, awarded Rs.9,000/- for loss of income for three months during which she was under treatment. Similarly, for nutrition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- and for pain and suffering awarded Rs.10,000/-. Amount of Rs.1,000/- was awarded towards loss of property. In all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.45,089/- to the claimant appellant. Having carefully considered the award under challenge, in my opinion, for three injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant, the Tribunal has rightly passed the 4 aforesaid award on the basis of evidence produced by the appellant herself. The appellant is admittedly house-wife, therefore, in view of the fact that amount of Rs.20,000/- for nutrition and Rs.9,000/- for loss of income have also been awarded, therefore, interest at the rate of 6% awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing claim petition is also not erroneous. In this view of the matter, there is no sufficient ground to accept the prayer of the appellant for enhancement of the compensation. Consequently, this appeal is devoid of any force and the same is hereby dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.