IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.786/2000. Devi Lal Vs. Hanuman Sahai & Others. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the M.A.C.T. Act, against the award dated 15.3.2000 passed by the Judge, M.A.C.T Tonk in Claim No.239/94 (Devi Lal Vs. Hanuman Sahai & Others.) by which the Tribunal awarded Rs.70,000/-. Date of Judgment ::: 20th March,2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.CHAUDHARI. Mr.Vinai Mathur for the appellant. Mr.Kapil Sharma on behalf of Mr.S.K.Gupta for respondent No.1 & 2. Mr.K.N.Tiwari for the respondent No.3. ..2.. BY THE COURT : This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 15.3.2000 passed by Judge, MACT, Tonk in Claim No.239/94 (Devi Lal Vs. Hanuman Sahai & Others) by which the learned tribunal awarded claim of Rs.70,000/-. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.6.94 appellant was going in truck No.RJ-14 -G-3867 as Cleaner of the truck. This truck was owned by respondent No.1. Other truck No.R.S.R 9705 collided with this truck. On account of rashness and negligence of both the truck drivers, both drivers died and appellant sustained injuries. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the truck No.R.S.R.9705 and respondent No.3 is the insurer of both these trucks. ..3.. Respondent No.1 & 2 did not appear before the Tribunal and respondent No.3 filed reply and raised many objections and prayed for dismissal of claim petition. After recording the evidence, the learned tribunal awarded Rs.70,000/-, against which, this appeal has been filed. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondents and also perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that looking to the disability, learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding only Rs.70,000/- as compensation and learned tribunal has not made bifurcation of awarded amount in different heads, hence, appeal may be accepted and compensation may be enhanced whereas learned counsel for the ..4.. respondents submitted that the awarded amount is just and proper, hence appeal may be dismissed. The appellant was working as cleaner in the truck at the time of accident. He has stated in his statement that he was getting Rs. 1500/- p.m as salary. He has also submitted discharge certificate Ex.6, X-Ray plates Ex.7 to Ex.9 and disability certificate Ex.5. He has not produced injury report. In the absence of injury report court cannot come to the conclusion that the disability occurred only on account of accident because as per discharge certificate Ex.6, appellant was admitted in hospital on 29.6.1994 and was discharged on 5.7.1994 whereas accident took place on 17.6.1994. Appellant has also not produced X-Ray report and in the absence of report it cannot be ..5.. inferred that just after accident X-Ray was done. As far disability certificate Ex.5 is concerned, this certificate has been prepared by medical jurist of Government Hospital. But most of the columns of Ist Part are blank. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that medical jurist who issued certificate Ex.5 has gone through all record of appellant. Medical jurist was also not examined by the appellant before Tribunal and merely by mentioning 35% disability in left elbow it cannot be presumed that appellant suffered 35% permanent disability in his body. Even if it is presumed that appellant suffered 15-20% permanent disability compensation of Rs.58,000/- on account of disability is just and proper. Learned Tribunal has already awarded Rs.10,000/- on account of expenditure on treatment though no bill has been produced by appellant and has ..6.. further awarded Rs.2000/- as expenses for attendant. Apparently, appellant remained in hospital for a week on account of fracture, it can be presumed that he must have remained away from his work for about two months. Loss of income comes to Rs.3000/- if his salary is accepted as pleaded by him. As far mental agony is concerned, learned tribunal should have awarded Rs.10,000/- to him. In such circumstances, appellant was entitled to compensation of Rs.71,000/- on account of loss of income, mental agony and disability. Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,000/- on account of expenditure of treatment and attendant against which only Rs.5,000/- should have been awarded in the absence of medical bills etc. Thus, appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.76,000/- instead of Rs.70,000/-. ..7.. Consequently, in the light of the above discussion, this appeal is partly allowed and the award dated 15.3.2000 passed by MACT Tonk is modified to the extent that appellant will be entitled to get Rs.76,000/- instead of Rs.70,000/- with interest as awarded by the learned tribunal. (K.S.Chaudhari)J. k.