1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.1513/2004 Badri Narain v/s Fakeer Mohammad & Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 10th November,2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Sandeep Mathur, for the appellant. Shri Vimal Sharma for the respondents. Shri Vinod Tyagi for respondent No.4. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay of 19 days in filing the appeal has been explained by the appellant properly and I am satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. Hence the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. The respondents are represented by their counsel. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal is heard finally. The appellant has preferred the appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the 2 impugned award dated 15.4.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.35,000/- in respect of the injury and 7.5% permanent disability sustained by the appellant as under; Rs.6,000/- for medical expenses, transportation and nutritious diet, Rs.1,500/- for loss of income of one month during treatment, Rs.27,500/- as a lump sum amount for physical pain and mental agony and loss of earning. The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not awarding the compensation under the head of “loss of income” by applying multiplier system as per Second Schedule of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.27,500/- as lump sum amount under the head of loss of earning which is not adequate in the facts and circumstance of the present case. He, therefore, contended that a suitable amount for compensation may be enhanced. Learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned award and contended that looking to the nature of injury, percentage of permanent disability, the amount of 3 compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and it is not a fit case to interfere in the finding of the learned Tribunal. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal while considering the issues No. 2 and 6, has considered the statement of AW 1 injured appellant Badri Narain, x-ray report Ex. 5, permanent disability certificate Ex 16, the medical bills Ex 17 to 19 and only thereafter the amount of compensation has been awarded as mentioned above. As per injury report Ex 5, the appellant sustained six simple injures. The appellant stated in his statement that he sustained fracture but the x- ray plate and x-ray report, both were not placed on record. Therefore, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that that these six injuries were simple in nature. The appellant did not produce on record any income certificate and in absence of any documentary evidence in this regard, the learned Tribunal assessed his income as Rs.1,500/- per month in view of the fact that the accident took place in the year 1996. the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.6,000/- on account of medical bills, transportation and nutritious diet, Rs.1,500/- for loss of income for one month during which treatment took place, as per Ex. 16, permanent disability 4 certificate, the appellant sustained 7.5% permanent disability and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded lump sum amount of Rs.27,500/- towards physical pain, mental agony and loss of earning. It is true that the tribunal has not applied multiplier system in the present case but it is not necessary that in each and every case, the same system should be applied. The tribunal is required to pass an award u/s 168 of the M.V. Act, 1988 which appears to be just and reasonable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v/s Mahadeo Shetty reported in (2003)(7) SCC 197 has observed that whatever mode or method adopted for assessment of compensation has to be considered in the back ground of “just” compensation which is pivotal consideration. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case, is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.K. Jain),J. Chauhan/