1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.2745/2008 Samay Singh v/s Ramesh Chand & Anr. Date of Judgment ::: 14th November,2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Anoop Agarwal, for the appellant. Shri L.S. Tomar on behalf of Shri D. S. Choudhary, for the respondent No.1. Shri T.P. Sharma, for respondent No.2. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. The respondents are represented by their respective counsel. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal was heard and is being disposed of finally. The injured-claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in motor accident took place on 22.3.2005 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 13.2.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,19,569/- as under :- Rs.1,85,810/- for loss of income, Rs.28,759/- for medical bills, Rs.5,000/- for physical pain, mental agony, transportation and 2 attendant charges. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in not awarding any specific amount of compensation for the attendant for about 6 months during which the appellant remained under treatment and under this head at least Rs.18,000/- @ Rs.3000/- per month ought to have been allowed which has not been allowed. Therefore, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal be enhanced to that extent. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that looking to the age, income and percentage of permanent disability suffered by the appellant, the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable. It is further contended that the Tribunal has already taken a liberal view by awarding the amount of compensation under the head of loss of income. There was no documentary evidence in support of the income of the appellant and in absence of it, at the most the Tribunal should have assessed the income as per daily wage i.e. Rs.73 per day, whereas the Tribunal has assessed Rs.3300/- per month and accordingly awarded the compensation. It is further contended that as per two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 1/3 amount is also liable to be deducted for personal/miscellaneous expenses even in the injury cases but the learned Tribunal has not 3 deducted any amount in this regard. Therefore, even if the specific amount for attendant has not been awarded, then also the amount of compensation awarded in the present case cannot be said to at a lesser side. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award and record of the Tribunal. The motor accident in the present case took place on 22.3.2005. As per documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal determined the age of the appellant as 35 years. So far as the income of the appellant is concerned, the learned Tribunal considered his statement wherein he stated that he was earning Rs.4200/- per month but no documentary proof in support of it or any salary certificate was placed on record and in the absence of it, the learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income as Rs.3300/-. Looking to his age, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17. Thereafter it was divided by 27.60% permanent disability suffered by the appellant and consequently awarded a sum of Rs.1,85,810/-. The Tribunal has awarded further amount of Rs.5,000/- towards physical pain and mental agony and attendant charges but the said amount under this head, does not appear to be adequate. However, in view of the fact that in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal as assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.3300/-, I find 4 that the total amount of compensation awarded in the present case, is just and reasonable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in two cases i.e. Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh Gaud and others (2008 ACJ 9) (para-9)and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Charlie & Anr.(2005(II) ACC 74 (SC) (para 5) has deducted 1/3rd amount, out of total amount awarded under the head of loss of income, for personal / misc. expenses even in the injury cases, but in the present case, the said amount has not been deducted. The appellant suffered 27.60% permanent disability and looking to the percentage of the permanent disability suffered by the appellant, I find that the total amount of compensation of Rs.2,19,569/- cannot be said to be a meager amount. The Tribunal is required to pass the award u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which appears to be just and reasonable compensation. The Tribunal further awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim application i.e. 20.9.2005. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC V/s Mahadev Shetty & Anr (2003) 7 SCC 197 has observed that every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the back ground of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. In view of the above discussion, I find that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case by the Tribunal, appears to be just, fair and reasonable and cannot be said to 5 be a meager amount. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.K. Jain),J. Chauhan/