CMA 1640/1999 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur J U D G M E N T In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1640/1999 Tara Chand Vs. Nadeem and others Date of Judgment :: 31st March, 2009 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Guman Singh Mr. Sandeep Mathur, for appellant. Mr. Rishi Pal Agarwal ] Mr. Anand Singh Rajawat with ] Mr. R.P. Singh, ]for respondents. BY THE COURT (ORAL) Heard. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the injured-appellant Tara Chand for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur) vide order dated 11/8/1999 in Claim Case No.110/1994 whereby a sum of Rs.12,000/- was awarded by way of compensation for the injuries caused in the accident resulting to 23.8 % disability. CMA 1640/1999 (2) 2. The only challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal failed to award adequate compensation as no compensation for loss of earning on account of disability has been assessed by the learned Tribunal and that deserves to be assessed by taking the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to be the guideline. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal on the ground that adequate compensation has been awarded and the same calls for no interference. Learned counsel submits that the injury caused to the injured has not been supported by the treating doctor and that the injuries are not of serious/grievous nature as the challan in this case has not been filed under section 338 IPC pertaining to grievous hurt by rash and negligent act. Learned counsel further submitted that the injuries caused are not covered by section 142 of the Motor Vehicles CMA 1640/1999 (3) Act, 1988. In support of his case, he relied upon some of the judgments rendered in the case of Pani Devi Vs. Veermaram & Anr., reported in 2005 R.A.R. 47, Kumari Anjana Vs. Mangal Singh and others, reported in 1996(2) T.A.C. 294 (Raj.), K.P. Muhammed Vs. Devassia and others, reported in 2004(1) T.A.C. 606 (Ker.), Gopal Krishan Pareek Vs. Bhawani Shanker and others, reported in 2008(1) T.A.C. 525 (Raj.) and Rajesh Kumar @ Raju Vs. Yudhvir Singh & Anr., reported in MACD 2008 (SC) 286. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and going through the award as well as the record of the case, it is revealed that the injured is found to have sustained 23.8% disability vide Exhibit-7, the disability certificate issued by the board of doctors constituted by the State Government in SMS hospital, Jaipur. In the certificate, facial paralysis has been found to have caused on account of post head injury with 23.8% disability. One of the member of the board Dr. M.K. Mathur (AW2) has been examined during the enquiry who has proved the disability CMA 1640/1999 (4) certificate as well as disability caused to the injured. Thus, the disability caused to the injured has been proved in the matter and the finding of the Tribunal that disability has not been found proved is not liable to be sustained and the same is set aside. The judicial pronouncements cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are not of much avail in the facts of the present case. Therefore, the amount of compensation deserves to be assessed by taking the appropriate multiplier commensurating with the percentage of disability as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to be the guideline as under :- 1500(monthly earning)x12x17(multiplier) x23.8/100(percentage of disability)=72828(to be additionally awarded). 6. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified and the appellant is awarded enhanced additional amount of Rs.72828/- from the date of appeal i.e. 16/11/1999 with 6 CMA 1640/1999 (5) percent interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter, interest @ 9 percent per annum shall be payable. 7. The appeal stands disposed of. (Guman Singh),J. VS Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. Item No.H20