1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Chhitarmal Vs. Battilal & ors. SB CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 813/1999. Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. DATE OF ORDER: 6th November, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. K.N. Tiwari for the appellant. Ms. Ritu Sharma on behalf of Mr. Paras Kuhad for respondent no.2. Mr. A.S. Shekhawat on behalf of Mr. G. Bardar for the respondent no.3. BY THE COURT: This civil misc. appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation has been filed against the judgment and award dated 20.4.1999 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur (in short to be referred as, 'the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No.80/94 whereby the appellant has been awarded a compensation of Rs.62,200/- along with interest @12% from the date of filing of the claim petition. The facts in brief are that on 3rd April, 1993 while the appellant was going on foot in the night at about 9.00 p.m. from power-house to his house, at that time when he reached near the petrol pump, a new ford tractor without number came from Kota side in rash and negligent manner and hit the appellant from 2 behind as a consequence thereof the appellant sustained several injuries. In all, a compensation of Rs.10,35,000/- was sought. It was also stated in the claim petition that at the time of accident, the appellant was employed in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and he was getting monthly salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. The respondents except the insurance company (New India Insurance Company Ltd.) were proceeded exparte. The insurance company filed written statement wherein it was stated that no information was given regarding accident to them and the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid license, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. It was also stated that on account of negligence of the appellant as he was going in the middle of the road, the accident had taken place. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed five issues including relief. The tribunal after recording evidence produced before it on behalf of the claimants and on hearing final submissions and finding that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor and looking to 14% disability on account of fracture in the right leg of the appellant and further on account of fracture of skull and injuries on the head being grievous in nature and dangerous to life, awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/-, on account of pains and sufferings etc. compensation of Rs.30,000/- was awarded and a total sum of Rs.62,200/- was awarded as compensation. 3 The contention of the learned counsel is that looking to two grievous injuries sustained by the appellant, the compensation which has been awarded is at lower side and it needs to be enhanced. It is contended that the learned tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence. On the other hand, it is contended that the learned tribunal has considered the evidence led before it and looking to the nature of injuries and the treatment and time spent in the hospital and taking into consideration the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, a just and reasonable compensation has been awarded. I have considered the above submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. The finding of the learned tribunal in relation to accident having not been challenged, the only aspect which requires consideration in the present matter, is as to whether the compensation awarded in this case needs to be enhanced. It is to be seen that on account of 14% disability, the tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- compensation. The tribunal has also awarded compensation in relation to pains and sufferings and medical expenses etc. The learned tribunal found that the disability certificate produced was not explaining the consequences of disablement on account of injury on the leg. The tribunal has also found that no discharge certificate or a certificate in relation to absence from duty was produced, therefore, 4 considered the disability certificate as proof towards the period from 3.4.1993 to 12.4.1993, the appellant was admitted in the hospital. The learned tribunal considering the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.2,500/- per month, awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as loss of salary. In view of the above discussion made by the learned tribunal in relation to evidence led before it, it appears that the tribunal has properly considered the matter and has properly appreciated the evidence and just and reasonable award has been passed by the tribunal and the same does not requires any interference by this court. The appeal preferred for enhancement of compensation is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed In the result, this misc. appeal is dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK),J. bblm