1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.834/2007 Rajendra Singh v/s Nizamuddin & Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 5th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Raghunandan Sharma, for the appellant. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in motor accident took place on 25.5.2004 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 13.11.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.507/2005, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.70,000/- in his favour with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim application i.e. 26.6.2004. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in 2 not awarding the proper compensation looking to the percentage of permanent disability of the appellant. It is contended that the appellant submitted a copy of his income tax return before the Tribunal which has not been taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing his monthly income, therefore, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, is liable to be modified by enhancing the amount of compensation. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned award as well as the record of the Tribunal. So far as the monthly income of the appellant is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a copy of the income tax return placed on record by him before the Tribunal. However, from the record as well as the finding of the Tribunal, it is clear that the said return is neither a certified coy nor it is an original nor it is a compared copy even. For the said reasons, the learned Tribunal observed that it cannot be read in evidence, in my view, the learned Tribunal was fully justified in not relying upon the said income tax return filed by the 3 appellant. It is also relevant to mention that the Tribunal is required to pass an award u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. After considering the nature of injuries, percentage of permanent disability i.e. 24.66%, I find that the amount of compensation with interest awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it, is called for. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. Chauhan/