SBCMA No.153/08 Hanuman Ram & Ors. Vs. Birbal Ram & Anr. 1 1. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.153/2008 Hanuman Ram Vs. Birbal Ram & Anr. 2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.667/2007 Surja Ram Vs. Birbal Ram & Anr. 3. S.B. Civil Misc.Appeal No.787/2007 Sohan Ram Vs. Birbal Ram & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : - 10.11.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. L.R. Poonia, for the appellants. Mr. Sunil A. Vyas, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. All the three appeals since are connected, therefore they are being heard together. The appellants in these appeals are aggrieved against the award dated 21.11.2005 as according to the appellants, less quantum has been awarded to the appellants. All claimants are injured. SBCMA No.153/08 Hanuman Ram & Ors. Vs. Birbal Ram & Anr. 2 The claim case No.935/04 has been preferred by the claimants Surjaram and he has been awarded compensation of Rs.76,920/-. He claimed in claim petition to be of age of 35 years but in his statement, he stated that he was age of 45 years. He claimed that he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month but he could not prove this fact by cogent evidence and the Tribunal assessed the income of the victim is Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal on the basis of the medical evidence held that the claimant suffered 12.08 percent permanent disability and by applying multiplier of 15, awarded compensation of Rs.69,120/-. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the compensation awarded is too low. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant suffered permanent disability of 12.08 percent and that evidence has not been rebutted by the respondent. The Tribunal awarded compensation on the basis of evidence produced by the claimant himself and after assessing the income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/- per month, in a case where the appellant failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove earning of Rs.5,000/- per month. SBCMA No.153/08 Hanuman Ram & Ors. Vs. Birbal Ram & Anr. 3 Looking to the nature of injury, I do not find that the Tribunal committed any error of fact or law in assessing the compensation for claimant Surjaram. There is no merit in this appeal, hence it is dismissed. The victim Hanuram who submitted claim case No.936/04 suffered four injuries which were simple in nature and in view of the above, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,000/- for each of the injury and Rs.1,000/- in addition to above. The Tribunal has not committed any error of fact or law because of the reason that the injuries on the body of the claimant Hanuman Ram were of very simple nature. There is no merit in this appeal, hence it is dismissed. Sohanram in Claim Case No.937/04 claimed that he remained hospitalized for 20 days but from medical report Ex.16, it was found that he suffered only four injuries. In that situation, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the claimant Sohanram, that appears to be also just and proper. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal also. SBCMA No.153/08 Hanuman Ram & Ors. Vs. Birbal Ram & Anr. 4 Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Insurance Company may be directed to pay compensation first and may be allowed to recover the amount from the insured. There is no reason to allow the prayer in the facts and circumstances of the case, where very small amount of compensation has been awarded which can be recovered from the owner of the vehicle directly and once the Tribunal has not exercised jurisdiction to allow recovery from the Insurance Company in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere in the appeals. Hence, all these appeals are dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. Praveen