1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 279 of 1997 DHULJI V/S KARAN SINGH & ORS Mr. KRISHNA CHAND for Mr. MRIDUL JAIN, for the appellant Date of Order : 13.7.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation claimed on account of personal injury, as awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur vide award dated 22.10.1996, awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- along with interest from 6.11.1995 @ 12% p.a. According to the claimant on 16.8.1993 he was traveling along with some goods in delinquent truck No. RJ27-G-0084. At about 8.15 PM, when the truck was near Hanumanji Temple, on account of negligent driving of the truck, the claimant fell down, and became unconscious. With these facts, he has claimed a total compensation of Rs.3,36,000/- for permanent disablement. Learned Tribunal found the issue of negligence in favour of the claimant. However, assessing compensation while deciding issue No.4, it has considered, that according to the claimant he had spent Rs.55,000/- in the treatment, 2 another sum of Rs.45,000/- was said to have been spent on the attendants, and suffered a loss of Rs.65,000/- in income, and has also claimed to have become mentally weak. As against this, he has led no evidence for any permanent disablement, no medical certificate has been produced to prove, that his working efficiency has been adversely affected. It was found that the claimant was found to be serving in Mumbai, but he has not given details of the employer, and there is no document to show that he remained indoor patient at Ahmedabad for 1½ months, nor any details of expenditure, said to have been incurred on the attendants, has been given. Likewise, medical bills produced totaled to Rs.726.36 Paisa only. In view of this, the learned Tribunal made an assessment of compensation for personal injury on parameters laid down in Section 163A, and assessed non-pecuniary compensation at Rs.7000/-, and awarded another sum of Rs.8000/- for various other expenditures and inconveniences, including medical expenditure. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the documents Ex.9 and 10, to contend, that the finding recorded in para 10 is bad. Even after going through Ex.9 and 10, I do not find any error in the findings, as Ex.9 which is the hospital ticket of the claimant does clearly recite the condition on discharge, and mentions, that he is walking freely. He was admitted for some head injury and suspected paraplegia, but then he was discharged cured. In such circumstances, in my view, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No.4 cannot be said to be suffering from any error. 3 The appeal thus, has no force and is, dismissed. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/