1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1493/05 Smt. Kaushalya vs. Khemraj & Ors. Date of order : 17/4/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri V.K. Jain for the appellant. Shri Amarnath Pareek for the respondent no.4. ****** This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 14.3.2005 whereby the claimant-appellant has been awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- for the permanent disability of 20% due to the accident. The appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has recorded a perverse finding as to the income of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence that was produced by the appellant was that she was working woman and was making `pattal-donas'. According to her, her monthly income was anywhere between Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month but the Tribunal disbelieved that statement holding that her husband was a peon in a school and that the appellant 2 appears to be a house hold wife. It was argued that there could be no documentary proof of income in view of the nature of work, the appellant was doing. Even if the income of the appellant is assessed on the basis of minimum wages at the relevant time, the appellant would be earning Rs.2,800/- per month and applying the structured formula as contained in Schedule II with reference under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the compensation should have been much more than awarded. The learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in MACD 2008 (SC) 1 wherein for 45% permanent disability the claimant who was aged 29 years was awarded Rs.72,000 taking the loss of income after deducting 1/3rd as personal expenses as Rs.1200/-. Shri Amarnath Pareek, learned counsel for the respondent however sought to distinguish the aforesaid judgment and argued that the compensation for partial permanent disablement due to injuries could be awarded only in such cases where there is imputation of a limb. He in this connection 3 referred to clause 5 of Second Schedule, especially that part which provides that each permanent partial disablement shall be as per Schedule I under Workman Compensation Act, 1923. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, I find that the evidence led by the appellant that she was working women and was earning anywhere between Rs.3,000 to Rs.4,000 per month by making `pattal donas' was completely discarded by the Tribunal observing that since her husband was working as Peon in a school, she appears to be house hold wife, therefore, it could not be accepted that she would have earned at her own. The kind of reasoning that was adopted by the Tribunal to discard the evidence cannot be appreciated. The minimum wages at the time when the accident took place was Rs.60/- per day and on that basis total monthly income of an unskilled workman would be Rs.2,000/- per month, thus resulting into loss of Rs.400/- per month which amount as per the principles of law enunciated by the Court, if reduced by 1/3rd, would be only 4 Rs.266. The amount of Rs.266 be further multiplied by the multiplier of 16 then the amount comes as Rs.51,072 (266 x 12 x 16). The amount of compensation for permanent disability as awarded by the Tribunal is only Rs.45,000/- which is therefore liable to be enhanced to Rs.51,072/- in terms of the principles of law enunciated by the Courts. The appeal is therefore allowed in the terms indicated above and the amount of compensation on the head of permanent disability is enhanced as indicated above and the amounts awarded to the appellant under other heads being maintained as it is. The appellant shall be entitled to interest, in terms of the direction already passed by the Tribunal, on the enhanced amount. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/