1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.48/1997 Dr. Som Pratap Gupta v/s Mahesh Dutt & Anr. Date of Judgment ::: 12th November,2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Sandeep Mathur, for the appellant. Shri Virendra Agarwal, for respondents. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of the amount of compensation and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 3.8.96 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputali, whereby the leaned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.96,000/- in his favour as under :- Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.6,000/- for one and half month leave during which he remained under treatment, Rs.441/- for transportation charges, Rs.40,000/- for mental agony, Rs.44,400/- for 44.4% permanent disability. 2 The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not awarding adequate compensation in respect of 44.4% permanent disability suffered by the appellant. He contended that at the relevant time in the year 1989, the salary of the appellant was Rs.4,000/- and he was 36 years of age. If the multiplier system is adopted and multiplier of 16 is applied, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.3,37,920/- in view of 44% permanent disability. He, therefore, contended that the amount of Rs.44,400/- awarded under this head, may be enhanced to the amount of Rs.3,37,920/-. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the accident in the present case took place in the year 1989 and looking to the year of accident, the total amount of compensation of Rs.96,000/- cannot be said to be a meager amount, the said amount is just and reasonable. He further submits that Second Schedule of section 163-A of the M.V. Act, 1988 was inserted in the year 1994 and before 1994 the multiplier system was applicable in the death cases only but so far as the injury cases are concerned, the multiplier system was not applicable as per various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court also. He, therefore, contended that the amount of 3 compensation for permanent disability should not be calculated by adopting the multiplier system in the present case. He further submits that appellant is still working in the Govt. Hospital / medical college and is getting full salary and has also got promotion and benefit of revised pay scale, therefore, he is not entitled to get any amount of compensation under this head. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned award as well as record of the Tribunal. The accident in the present case took place on 26.5.1989. As per claim petition, the salary of the appellant was Rs.4,018/- per month. He was 36 years of age at the relevant time as mentioned in the claim petition. He was Asstt. Professor in orthopedic department in Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. As per injury report Ex 8, the appellant sustained 4 injuries in this accident. In x-ray report Ex 9, there was evidence of fracture on upper 1/3 of tibia bone of right leg. There was another fracture on left knee with upper end of tibia bone and fracture of patella bone. Injuries No.3 and 4 were found to be grievous in nature. As per statement of AW 1 Dr. Som Pratap Gupta, he was coming form Delhi to Jaipur on 25.5.1989 after completing formality to get Visa to go Saudi Arab and due to this accident, he sustained 4 injuries and fractures on both the legs. He was admitted in SMS Hospital at Jaipur. Thereafter, he went U.K. Also for consultation for proper treatment. He had an offer of Rs.8,00,000/- per year at Saudi Arab but he could not go and suffered huge loss of amount because of these injuries/accident. It is true that in view of injuries and fractures sustained by the appellant and the loss of income which he would have earned by going to Saudi Arab, the amount of compensation awarded for permanent disability by the Tribunal is a meager amount but what should be the reasonable amount, is the question, which is to be determined in the facts and circumstances of the present case. If the submission of the leaned counsel for the appellant is accepted and multiplier system is applied, then looking to his income and age at the relevant time, the said amount comes to Rs.3,37,920/-, even if 1/3 amount is deducted out of it for personal expenses in view of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 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). Then still remaining 2/3 amount comes to Rs.2,25,280/-. It is also correct that appellant is in Govt. service and is getting full salary and other benefits but definitely he has and will suffer 5 loss in his service career as well as private practice and cannot perform operation in his full strength and capacity. So far as Second Schedule to section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is concerned, the same was inserted in the year 1994, whereas the present accident took place in the year 1989. If the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is accepted for not applying the multiplier system, then the question remains about just amount of compensation to be awarded in the present case. The Tribunal is required to pass an award which appears to be “just”. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the back ground of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC V/s Mahadev Shetty & Anr (2003) 7 SCC 197. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, I think it fit and proper that “just” amount under this head, in my view, will be Rs.1,50,000/- in place of Rs.44,400/- as awarded by the Tribunal. So far as the remaining amount of compensation of Rs.51,441/- awarded by Tribunal under other heads are concerned, the same has not been disputed and the appellant will be entitled to 6 get the same also. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,01,441/- (Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.51,441/-), which is rounded off to Rs.2,01,500/-. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award of the learned Tribunal is modified. The amount of compensation of Rs.96,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,01,500/-. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim application i.e. 19.9.1989 till the date of payment. No order as to costs. (N.K. Jain),J. Chauhan/