IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Bali & Others (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.929/2010) DATE OF JUDGMENT : December 06, 2010 P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Sanjeev Johari for the appellant. Mr. Rakesh Arora for the respondents. BY THE COURT : In this appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd., it is prayed that compensation awarded to respondent No.1 claimant may be reduced because it is excessive. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that learned Tribunal has erred in law while awarding amount of Rs.6,53,500/- on the ground that income of Rs.4,000/- assessed by the Tribunal is 2 totally wrong. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that for a person aged above 40 years learned Tribunal has wrongly adopted multiplier of 15 which is excessive being on the higher side. The Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration all the surrounding circumstances while awarding compensation in favour of the injured claimant. In fact, very important ground was raised by learned counsel for the appellant that as per the FIR accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.RG-04-G-2429 and said truck was not insured with the insurance company but, in the claim petition filed by the claimant, it is stated that the accident took place due to hit of truck No.RJ-06-G-4249. In this view of the matter, it is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that if the vehicle which was not insured with the appellant insurance company was involved in the accident, there is no question of granting any compensation. 3 I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and also perused entire record of the case. First of all, I have considered argument of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to contention that in the FIR the truck is mentioned bearing registration No.RJ-06-G-2429 and claim has been filed against truck bearing registration No.RJ-06- G-4929. In that regard, learned Tribunal while taking into consideration the fact that in the investigation police found that in fact the FIR was filed by son of injured claimant and, due to bona fide mistake, wrong truck number was mentioned; but, after investigation, police filed challan against driver of truck bearing registration No.RJ-06-G-4929. The police also gave notice under Section 133 of the M.V. Act to owner of the truck and owner of the truck also admitted that at the time the said accident driver Gopal Lal was driving the truck. The said document was exhibited as Ex.-7 at the trial. Therefore, learned trial Court while taking 4 into consideration all relevant facts held that in the FIR wrong truck number was mentioned by bona fide mistake but, in fact, truck No.RJ-06-G-4929 was involved in the accident and said truck was insured with the appellant insurance company. As per facts of the case claimant-respondent No.1 Smt. Bali met with accident on 18.02.2006 near village Kali Radia on Bhilwara – Bigod when she was going on foot along the road at about 3 P.M., she was hit by truck No.RJ-06-G-4929 which was being driven by driver Gopal Lal rashly and negligently and, due to said accident, Smt. Bali suffered serious injuries and she lost one leg in the accident. The injured claimant proved before the Court that she suffered 80% disability and lost her left leg from above knee. Before the Tribunal, by leading medical and other evidence, it is proved by the claimant that she suffered 80% permanent disability. Learned Tribunal warded Rs.6,58,500/- while assessing her income at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month and because she suffered 5 80% disability, therefore, granted her benefit of multiplier of 15. In my opinion, the finding arrived at issue-wise by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. It is also very important aspect of the matter that in the appeal an alternative prayer has been made by the insurance company that compensation may be substantially reduced because it is excessive. This fact also goes in favour of the claimant-respondent Smt. Bali because she proved the element of accident. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no error in the award impugned passed by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.