1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2185/2004 PREM CHAND V/s SURESH KUMAR & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :- MAY 29, 2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri D.K. Bhardwaj, for appellant. Shri Tej Prakash Sharma for Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 1. The case has come up for admission. Counsel of both the parties agree to dispose of the case at admission stage. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the miscellaneous appeal. 3. This civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by injured Prem Chand for enhancement of compensation against the award dated August 18, 2004 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar, in Claim Petition No.283/2002, whereby a sum of Rs.79,600/- has been awarded by way of compensation to the claimant-appellant. The only challenge in this appeal pertains to the quantum of compensation . 2 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to award adequate compensation as only Rs.15,000/- was awarded by way of compensation while the injured was 35 years of age and he was driver and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and on account of injury caused in the accident, his patella bone of right knee has been removed and on account of the said movement of his right knee has been restricted upto 70% and he is not in a position to squat and to sit cross leg. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant further submitted that on account of this grievous injury he was found with 26.66% permanent disability resulting in difficultly in doing manual work. The appellant was rendered handicapped for whole of the life as well as his livelihood greatly effected by the very accident as his occupation was adversely effected. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that in the instant appeal the learned Tribunal erred in not awarding the adequate compensation. He submits that 26.66% disability of the 3 injured was found by the doctor. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation without considering the various factors based on concept of pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages as delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others (1995 ACJ 366. 6. 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 and calls for no interference. 7. In view of the submissions advanced and on going through the award as well as the record of the case, it is revealed that only Rs.15,000/- has been awarded by way of loss of earning while the injured was driver and was found to be earning Rs.1800/- per month and as such the loss of earning deserves to be computed on applying multiplier of 17 in view of the age of the injured commensurates with the percentage of disability sustained by the injured as 4 thus : Rs.1800 x 12 x 17 = Rs.3,67,200 and computing 26.66% that comes to Rs.97,895/- out of which Rs.15,000/- has already been awarded. Thus the amount comes to Rs.97,895/- minus Rs.15,000/- = Rs.82,895/-. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.82,895/- plus Rs.79,600/- = Rs.1,62,495/-. 9. Accordingly the award is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation of Rs.79,600/- is substituted by Rs.1,62,495/- from the date of the appeal i.e. 27.9.2004. The amount so increased shall entail interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the order to be paid within three months failing which interest @ 9% p.a. shall be payable. 10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with the above modification. (Guman Singh), J. chauhan/