1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ** 1. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.743/2000 (Shiv Narayan Vs. Babu Ram Mali and ors.) 2. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.744/2000 (Mangi Lal Vs. Babu Ram Mali and ors.) Date of Judgment : 07-07-2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr.K.N.Tiwari,for the appellants. Mr.J.P.Goyal & Mr.Jitendra K.Sharma, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both these appeals being CMA No.743/2000 (claim case No.121/95) and CMA No.744/2000 (claim case No.103/1995) have been preferred on behalf of respective injured-appellants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur vide judgment dated 2.3.2000 whereby a sum of Rs.57,000/- was awarded by way of compensation to the injured Shiv Narayan in claim case no.121/95 and Rs.28,500/- was awarded by way of compensation to the injured Mangilal in claim case no.103/95 for the injuries sustained by them in the accident. 2 3. The challenge in these appeals pertains to quantum of compensation only. CMA No.743/2000 (claim case No.121/1995) 4. Learned counsel for the injured- appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to award adequate compensation as the same has not been computed by taking second schedule to the M.V.Act to the guidelines. It is further submitted that the injured was driving the scooter which met with an accident with the jeep which was coming form opposite direction and the Tribunal has aportioned 50% liability for rash and negligent driving to each vehicle and thereby amount of compensation has been reduced to 50% while there has been no fault of the appellant and he did not contribute to the accident. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for 3 no interference. It is further submitted that the injured who was driving the scooter had also contributed in the accident as the accident took place in the middle of road as the jeep was at its' side while coming from opposite direction and scooterist had enough road to his left and could avoid the accident but he failed to do so as he himself was rash and negligent. 6. After hearing the rival contentions, and on going through award and record of the case, it is revealed that injured-appellant was driving the scooter and accident took place at Agra Highway Road and, as such, both the vehicles were driven in a speed which could be attained at a highway. From the site inspection map, it is revealed that accident took place in the middle of road and this shows that scooter had enough road in its left and could avoid the accident but it has not been explained by the appellant- injured as to how the scooter collided against the jeep though the injured has been examined in the court. Therefore, there is nothing on record to infer that scooterist had not contributed for the 4 negligence. Thus the finding of the Tribunal pertaining to 50% negligence on the part of both the vehicles calls for no interference. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is revealed that the Tribunal has awarded RS.15000/- on account of disability but the Tribunal has failed to consider the compensation as per second schedule to the M.V.Act by taking it to be a guideline. Thus the amount deserves to be computed by applying the appropriate multiplier available to the injured at the age of retirement at the age of 60 which is the age of retirement commensurating with the percentage of disability as the loss of income during the service period shall be taken care of by the Government, as under: 4888 (salary) x 12x 8 (multiplier) x 17% (disability)= Rs.79,772- Rs.7500(already awarded)= Rs.72,272-(minus)50% (as against contributory negligence)= Rs.36,136/- (to be additionally awarded) 7. Accordingly, appeal of the injured- appellant Shiv Narayan is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant 5 shall get a sum of Rs.36,136/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 2.6.2000, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent forthwith. CMA No.744/2000 (claim case No.103/95) 8. Learned counsel for the injured- appellant Mangi Lal submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to award adequate compensation as the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation for 9% disability sustained while the amount deserves to be awarded by taking second schedule to the M.V.Act to be the guidelines by taking daily earning of the injured atleast Rs.60/- equivalent to a skilled labour. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has 6 awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has deducted 50% on account of contributory negligence but the injured was not driving the scooter as such, 50% is not required to be deducted. 10. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that injured was not driving the scooter. He was a pillion rider, as such, deduction of 50% amount on account of contributory negligence is uncalled for and finding of the Tribunal to that extent is set aside. As regards the compensation for loss of future income, same deserves to be awarded by taking Rs.60/- per day as daily income as he was mason by occupation and had sustained 9% disability. Thus the amount of compensation deserves to be computed as under: 60x30x12x15(multiplier)x9%(disability) =29,160-10,000 (already awarded) =19,160+28,500 (not paid on account of 50% deduction for contributory negligence) =47,660/- (to be additionally awarded). 11. Accordingly, appeal of the injured- 7 appellant Mangi lal is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant shall get a sum of Rs.47,660/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 2.6.2000, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent forthwith. (GUMAN SINGH),J. Sandeep/- item no.24-25