1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJ. AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1801/2001 JINENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS DATE OF ORDER :- FEBRUARY 4,2009, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma , for the appellant, Ms. Manju Jain, Mr. M.L. Goyal, for the respondents, BY THE COURT(ORAL) Heard. This appeal has been preferred by injured Jinendra Kumar Jain for enhancement of claim, against the Award, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur , vide Award dated 31.8.2001, in Claim Case No. 56/01), whereby a sum of Rs.1,15,898/- was awarded by way of compensation for the 25% permanent disability caused in the accident. The only challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation. 2 Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has failed to award adequate compensation as only a sum of Rs. 24,000/- have been awarded for 25% permanent disability caused to the injured. The learned counsel submits that the injured sustained fracture of tibia and fibula bone in the accident and the resultant disability is permanent in nature and it has disabled the person for whole of life. The learned counsel submitted that the injured deserves to be awarded compensation as per II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the Award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation in view of the evidence adduced during enquiry and the same calls for no interference. Having considered the submissions and going through the award as well as the record of the case, it is revealed that 3 at the time of accident, the injured was a govt. servant and the certificate of his date of birth as well all the monthly emoluments drawn by him have been produced on record. According to the certificate, the date of birth of the injured is 24.4.1960 and the monthly emoluments are to the tune of Rs. 8008/- p.m. The injured is to be awarded adequate compensation and should be placed in the same position as if he was before the accident. In this case the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the injured is a govt. servant and his disability has not adversely affected him as there has been no adverse effect on his emoluments on account of the disability so the loss of earning should be assessed from the age when he retires from the govt. job. In view of the submissions and the fact that the injured is a govt. servant and his loss on account of disability during the govt. service has been taken care of by his stable job. Thus the 4 multiplier to be adopted for computing the compensation should be what it is available at the age of 60. Thus the multiplier of 8 is required to be adopted and the sum can be computed as under:- “8008 x 12 x 8 x 25% = 192192-24,000(already awarded) = 1,68,192/-.( to be additionally awarded).” Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified and the appellant is awarded enhanced amount of 1,68,192 /- from the date of appeal i.e. 29.10.2001, with 6 per cent interest on the enhanced amount to be paid within three months , failing which the payment of the amount under the awards shall further entail interest @ 9 per cent p.a . The rest of the terms of the award shall remain unchanged. The appeal stands disposed of. (Guman Singh)J.