1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Chaudhary & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.875/2010) Date of Order :- April 21, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Virendra Agarwal, for the appellant. The appellant has challenged the award dated 03.03.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur wherein the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs1,35,000/- in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1. According to Mr. Virendra Agarwal, the learned counsel for the appellant, the claimant-respondent No.1, Rajesh Chaudhary, has suffered only 8% of permanent disability. However, the disability was not of such a nature as to cause any loss of income. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in calculating the loss of income. Moreover, since the claimant- respondent No.1 has already been paid Rs.33,000/- for pain and agony suffered by him, then the loss of income should not have been granted to him. Thus, the basis of the compensation amount calculated by the Tribunal is unjustified. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. According to disability certificate (Ex.76), the injuries suffered by the claimant-respondent No.1 and the consequence thereof are noted as under : “retraction of left shoulder elbow movement with deformity left arm region with difficulty in lifting heavy weight from left upper extremity” “Total physical permanent disability is 7.75% (Seven Decimal Seven Five Per Cent) with difficulty in lifting heavy weight from left upper extremity.” Since the injured has suffered the injuries, it can safely be presumed that he has suffered loss of income due to the said accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in calculating the loss of income. Moreover, a distinction has to be maintained between the pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. Even if the claimant-respondent No.1 has been paid Rs.33,000/- for pain and agony, the same cannot be included in the category of pecuniary loss suffered by him. If the contention raised by the learned counsel were to be accepted, it would obliterate the distinction between the pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss categories. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel is clearly unacceptable. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has given 3 cogent reasons for the amount being awarded by it. Considering the fact that merely Rs.1,35,000/- has been awarded to the claimant-respondent No.1, the said amount is neither unreasonable, nor unjust. Therefore, this appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-