// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4875/2008 Arvind Dangayach Son of Shri Mohanlal Dangayach Versus Vijay Singh Son of Shri Beerbal Gurjar and Others Date of Order ::: 10.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Kamal Gupta, Advocate, for Shri Mahesh Gupta, Counsel for appellant #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in a motor-accident took place on 22nd September, 2003 and being aggrieved with the Award dated 6th February, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.3, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in MAC Application No.325/2006 (606/2003), whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,43,450/- (Rupees four lac forty-three thousand four hundred fifty only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of // 2 // claim application i.e. 28th October, 2003 up-to the date of payment, in his favour, as under:- 1. Rs.3,40,000/- For loss of future income 2. Rs.15,000/- For loss of income for six months during which he remained under treatment 3. Rs.39,450/- Towards medical bills 4. Rs.18,000/- For physical pain and mental agony 5. Rs.15,000/- For nutritious food 6. Rs.16,000/- For deprivation of use of his right leg on account of its amputation The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal committed an illegality in not awarding the proper compensation under the head of loss of future income. As per his contention, the compensation under the head of loss of future income ought to have been awarded after assessing his income at-least at the rate of Rs.100/- per day instead of Rs.73/- as assessed by the Tribunal. He, therefore, contended that the finding of the Tribunal to that extent is liable to be modified and the amount of compensation may be enhanced accordingly. I have considered the submissions of the // 3 // learned counsel for the appellant in the light of the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to quantum of compensation. So far as the age of the appellant and multiplier adopted in the present case are concerned, the same have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant, in his claim application, pleaded that his monthly income was Rs.8,000/- but admittedly no documentary evidence in this regard has been placed on the record. However, in view of the fact that the appellant sustained 80% permanent disability as per the permanent-disability-certificate (Exhibit-13) the Tribunal assessed his annual income as Rs.25,000/- taking his daily income as Rs.73/- and applied the multiplier of 17 and thus the Tribunal, in view of the percentage of permanent disability suffered by the injured, awarded a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- towards loss of future income. The Tribunal observed that as per the Minimum Wages Act it has assessed the income of the appellant as Rs.73/- per day. So far as the income pleaded by the appellant is concerned, the same has not been proved by any documentary evidence whatsoever. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to // 4 // assessment of income of the income of the appellant appears to be fully justified and I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Another – (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the Tribunal is required to pass an Award under Section 168 of the Act of 1988 which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. After considering the age and income of the appellant and the percentage of permanent disability suffered by him, I find that the amount of compensation of Rs.4,43,450/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim application appears to be just, fair and reasonable, and no interference in it is called for. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//