1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.653/2005 (arising out of Claim No.469/2001) RAMAKANT ANURAGI V/s KUNWAR BAHADUR & ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT ::::: MAY 26, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri N.U. Quazi, for appellant. Shjri R.P. Choudhary for United India Insurance Co. Ltd. BY THE COURT : (Oral) 1. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation against the order dated November 29, 2004 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota (for short 'the “the Tribunal) whereby a sum of Rs.1,93,500/- was awarded as compensation by the learned Tribunal. 2. On 20.9.2000 injured Ramakant Anuragi was going on motor-cycle RJ 20-8M- 5482 as a pillion rider from Nimbaheda and he met with an accident near Narsinghgadh Puliya where the driver of the motor-cycle lost the 2 balance on account of rash & negligence and injured received injuries on left leg, left hand and right shoulder resulting 34% permanent disability. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant- claimant submitted that the injured appellant is an Government employee serving as Junior Engineer in RSEB and he had to undergo two operations on account of injuries and was not able to work for more than 689 days but the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for 52 days. Learned counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal on other accounts also deserves to be enhanced as the injured has suffered permanent disability and has become handicapped for whole of life. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the award in the instant case has been passed by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal. 5. In view of the submissions of the learned both the counsel counsel and on going through the award as well as the record of the case, it is revealed that the injured sustained 34% permanent disability and he had 3 to remain on leave on account of that accident. In this regard learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the leave was taken from 8.6.2001 to 10.8.2002 after four months' gap from his last leave and as such this should not be taken into account. 6. Without going into the merits of this contention, it would be suffice to observe that on account of injuries the injured has to remain im-mobile at least for 6 months and therefore the leave period of six months deserves to be reimbursed. Accordingly, the monthly salary of Rs.9,305/- x 6 = Rs.55,830/- is required to be enhanced. 7. Accordingly, the award is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation of Rs.1,93,500/- is substituted by Rs.2,49,330/- from the date of the appeal i.e. 24.2.2005. The amount so increased shall entail interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the appeal to be paid within three months failing which interest @ 9% p.a. shall be payable. 8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Guman Singh), J. chauhan/