1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3313/2006 {Shri Bahadur Singh Versus Shri Saddik Khan and Others} Date of Order :: 25th November, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Sunil Jain for the appellant Mr. Gopesh Kumbhaj for the respondents BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. Mr. Gopesh Kumbhaj, advocate appears for respondents. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the final arguments in the case were heard and the same is being disposed of. 4. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in motor accident took place on 8th July, 2004, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 63,845/- with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of claim application i.e. 9th August, 2004 till the date of payment in his favour. 5. The only contention of learned counsel 2 for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal while awarding the amount of compensation of Rs. 27,200/- under the head of loss of income for 10% permanent disability committed an illegality in deducting 1/3rd amount for personal expenses, whereas the 1/3rd amount for personal expenses is deducted only in death cases and not in injury cases. He contended that so far as present case is concerned, it being an injury case the Tribunal committed an illegality in deducting the same, therefore, the said amount may also be awarded. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned award and contended that the amount of award passed in the present case is just and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award as well as the record of the Tribunal. The Tribunal while deciding issue no.2 relating to quantum of compensation has considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, number and nature of injuries, the percentage of permanent disablement suffered by the appellant. As per injury report Ex.-4, the appellant sustained twelve injuries, 3 out of which eleven injuries were found to be simple in nature and one was grievous. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 11,000/- for simple injuries and Rs. 5000/- for grievous injury and thus, total amount of Rs. 16,000/- for twelve injuries. Rs. 12,000/- were further awarded @ Rs. 300/- per day for the period the appellant remained admitted in hospital. Rs. 5,000/- has further been awarded for physical pain and mental agony. So far as loss of income is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the income of the appellant @ Rs. 70/- per day being daily wage in absence of any documentary evidence in respect of his income as disclosed in the claim application and after applying the proper multiplier, deducted 1/3rd amount out of it for personal expenses in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 S.A.R. (Civil) 351 – New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Charlie & Another. The multiplier of 17 was applied in view of age of the appellant and in view of 10% permanent disability, Rs. 27,200/- has been awarded and thus, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 63,845/-. So far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant about deduction of 1/3rd amount for personal expenses in injury 4 case is concerned, I find that the learned Tribunal has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Charlie, wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that 1/3rd amount can be deducted for personal expenses even in injury case. Para 5 of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court is reproduced as under:- “5.What would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula by universal application. It would depend upon circumstances of each case. In the instant case the claimant was nearly 37 years of age and was married. Therefore, as rightly contended by learned Counsel for the appellant, 1/3rd deduction has to be made for personal expenditure.” 8. It is relevant to mention that Hon'ble Supreme court in another case Sunil Kumar Versus Ram Singh Gaud and Others (2008 ACJ 9) also deducted 1/3rd amount for misc. expenses in injury case itself in para 9 of the judgment, which also reads as under: “Taking into consideration the present income of the appellant as Rs. 4,000 per month and the permanent disability of 45 per cent suffered by him, we are of the view that the capacity of appellant to earn in future would 5 be reduced by Rs. 1,800 per month approximately. If 1/3rd is deducted towards miscellaneous expenses, the loss of income comes to Rs. 1,200 per month which, in turn, comes to Rs. 14,400 per annum. Appellant was 29 years of age at the time of accident. Taking the multiplier to be 18 (as per the Second Schedule to section 163-A of the Act), the total loss of income comes to Rs. 2,59,200.” 9. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and the same is rejected. Even otherwise I find that in-toto for the nature of injuries and the percentage of permanent disability, the amount of compensation of Rs. 63,845/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application, cannot be said to be a meager amount and it is just and reasonable amount of compensation. 10. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK