1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.818/2008 Amar Singh v/s Indrajeet Singh & Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 11th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Satish Khandal , 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 13 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 the reasons assigned in the application, I am satisfied that the sufficient ground is made out for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the appeal. Consequently, the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, is allowed. So far as the merits of the appeal are concerned, the appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in motor accident took 2 place on 8.2.2003 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 9.4.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) NO.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Claim Case No. 477/2005 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,81,161/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim application i.e. 5.9.2003 upto the date of payment, in his favour as under :- Rs.3,60,576/- towards loss of income, Rs.20,000/- for physical pain & mental agony, transportation charges and nutritious food, Rs.585/- for medical bills. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was working as Company Havldar in Army and was getting salary of Rs.7,708/- per month and because of injuries sustained by him in motor accident, he could not appear in the promotion test for promotional post and further that because of 25% permanent disability suffered by him due to such injuries, he was given pre-mature retirement, therefore, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation awarded in his faovur, cannot be said to be an adequate 3 amount of compensation and the same 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 recorded by the Tribunal with regard to quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the appellant suffered 25% permanent disability due to injuries sustained by him in the present accident. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was retired from service because of permanent disability suffered by him. The Tribunal took a note of both the facts and awarded the compensation of the entire salary of the remaining period of six years of service. The appellant was getting Rs.7,708/- as per his salary certificate Ex. 14. His remaining period of service was six years, he was getting pension of Rs.2700/- per month. The Tribunal awarded the entire amount of salary of six years after deducting the amount of pension which comes to Rs.3,60,576/- (7,708/- - 2700/- x 12 x 6). The Tribunal further awarded Rs.20,000/- towards physical pain & mental agony, nutritious food and transportation charges. Medical bills produced were also allowed. 4 In view of the above, it is clear that the appellant has been compensated fully for his remaining service of six years due to his pre-mature retirement. The Tribunal is required to pass an award u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v/s Mahadeo Shetty reported in (2003)(7) SCC 197 has held that every mode or method adopted for assessment of compensation has to be considered in the back ground of “just” compensation which is pivotal consideration. In view of the above discussions, I am satisfied that the amount of compensation of Rs.3,81,161/- with interest awarded in the present case for injuries and 25% permanent disability suffered by the appellant, is just fair and reasonable and the same does not call for any interference by this court. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. Chauhan/