1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ** S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.15/2000 (Jaipal Singh Vs. RSRTC) Date of Judgment : 21-05-2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Dr.Narayan Dutt & Mr.O.P.Mishra for Mr.M.M.Ranjan,for the appellants. Mr.Anirudh Singh for Mr.V.Agrawal, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of injured-appellant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khetri (Jhunjhunu) vide judgment dated 26.10.99 whereby a sum of Rs.15,000/- was awarded by way of compensation for 40% disability caused 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 failed to award adequate compensation as no amount has been awarded for the loss of earning on account of disability caused in 2 the accident while the injured was driver employed with Delhi Transport Corporation and on account of disability, he has been rendered out of job. It is further submitted that on account of disability caused due to fracture of ankle and femur bones of right leg, he is not in a position to drive the vehicle as his leg cannot be folded. It is also submitted that the compensation deserves to be awarded by taking second schedule to the M.V.Act. 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. 6. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that as per the claim petition, appellant-injured remained employed with DTC for sometime inspite of disability caused and he was being paid Rs.1100/- and afterwords his services were 3 terminated. The appellant-injured was getting Rs.4000/- from his earlier employment but no such certificate has been filed and it has also not been clarified that as to when his services were terminated and on what terms and what amount he was being paid thereafter by DTC. Therefore, his monthly earning deserves to be assessed as Rs.2500/- for computing the compensation and the same deserves to be awarded by adopting appropriate multiplier commensurating with the percentage of disability. As he was driver by profession, thus the amount of compensation can be computed as under: 2500x12x17(multiplier)x40%(disability) =2,04,000 /-(to be additionally awarded). 7. Learned counsel for the appellant at this stage submitted that in this appeal, other appellant Liladhar Sharma, Advocate has also challenged the observation of the Tribunal pertaining to adverse remarks about the manner in which the claim petition was conducted by the Advocate Liladhar Sharma and that deserves to be expunged. 4 8. In view of submissions and on going through the record of the case, it is revealed that the remarks made against the Advocate Sh.Liladhar Sharma, who was conducting the case, are uncalled for and same deserves to be expunged. Accordingly, remarks stand expunged. 9. Accordingly, appeal of the appellants is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants shall get a sum of Rs.2,04,000/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 17.11.1999, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent forthwith. (GUMAN SINGH),J. Sandeep/- item no.7