SBCMA No.58/2008 Manohar Singh Vs.Bhanwarlal & Ors. 1 SBCMA No.58/2008 Manohar Singh Vs.Bhanwarlal & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 11.12.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.SK Sankhla, for the appellant. Mr.RK Singhal, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved against the low award of compensation vide award dated 19th Sept., 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, (MACT Cases), Jodhpur in MACT Case No.452/2005. According to learned counsel for the appellant the appellant suffered grievous injury as well as 40% disability. The appellant was having assessed income by the Income Tax Department Rs.1,33,117/- and in the year 2005-06 his income remained Rs.87,805/-. It is submitted that the tribunal mis-understood this fact by holding that the loss of income of the appellant is only Rs.45312/-. It is submitted SBCMA No.58/2008 Manohar Singh Vs.Bhanwarlal & Ors. 2 that loss of income should have been assessed from the annual income of the appellant Rs.1,33,117/-. It is also submitted that low amount of compensation of Rs.8,000/- has been awarded to the appellant on account of pain and suffering. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant produced the MRI report Ex.32 and also produced the doctor as AW-2 Subhash Jangid to prove his sufferings and the disability, yet the tribunal has awarded too low compensation. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record also. It is not in dispute that the victim was of the age of 73 years at the time of accident. His income tax returns shows that his income was Rs.1,33,117/- for the previous year and for subsequent year, his income has been shown as Rs.87805/-. As per the facts mentioned in the claim petition, the victim was running his own firm and he was proprietor of the firm. His age is relevant factor and his injuries, which according to the claimant was of grievous nature were because of the reason that he suffered injury near the head. A bare SBCMA No.58/2008 Manohar Singh Vs.Bhanwarlal & Ors. 3 perusal of the MRI report Ex.32 it appears that, that report is with respect to the internal parts of the body of the victim. In statement before the tribunal, the doctor merely stated that at the time of examination of the victim, his physical condition had the problem mentioned in Ex.32. He nowhere stated that all these aliments came because of the accident only. The MRI report is as under: - “The study reveals degenerative changes evidence by bony eburnations at anterior and posterior vertebral margins. Generalized altered bone marrow signal intensity is seen in vertebral bodies appearing isointense to hypointense in T1 weighted images while isointense in T2 weighted images-? Due to fluorosis. Atlantoaxial junction is normal. C5-6 intervertebral disc height is reduced. Thickened ossified posterior loungitudinal ligament is seen. At C3-4 posterior osteophyte and disc bulging is seen with hypertrophied facet joints causing indentation of thecal sac. At C4-5, C5-6 and C6-7 posterior ostephyte and dis bulging is seen with hypertrophied facet joints causing indentation of spinal cord and bilateral lateral recesses. SBCMA No.58/2008 Manohar Singh Vs.Bhanwarlal & Ors. 4 Focal cord contusion oedema is seen at C4-5 vertebral level appearing hyperintense in T2 weighted images while isointense in T1 weighted images. No pre/para vertebral collection seen. Note is made of Thickening and clacification of subcutaneous fascia along posterior spinal muscles.” It appears from the above report that some of the aliments could have been only because of the physical changes in the body and may not be have the direct relation to the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the MRI was advised by the doctor and, therefore, only the appellant was subjected to MRI and that was because of the reason that appellant informed the doctor about his problem in the upper part of the body and other parts also, therefore, it can be presumed that it is direct result of the accident. The argument cannot be accepted because of the plain and simple reason that in a case of accident, the doctor is required to examine the body as a whole and during that SBCMA No.58/2008 Manohar Singh Vs.Bhanwarlal & Ors. 5 course, he may notice very many other things about the aliment of the victim and may advise for further investigation wherein it may be noticed that the patient had other complications and disability and the problems within the body parts. Therefore, if the tribunal has accepted the disability of 40% even on the basis of such evidence, I do not find that the tribunal has committed any wrong by doing so, but so far as loss of income is concerned, for that purpose, if the tribunal has assessed loss of income on the basis of two income tax returns and difference therein and after taking into account the age of the victim, I do not find that the award of compensation to the victim to the extent of Rs.1,75,610/- on account of loss of income can be said to be low in any manner. For pain and suffering also, a compensation of Rs.8,000/- has been awarded and there cannot be straitjacket formula for judging the loss due to pain and suffering of the victim, but in the present facts of the case, I do not find that award of compensation to the claimant of Rs.8,000/- on this count is low. SBCMA No.58/2008 Manohar Singh Vs.Bhanwarlal & Ors. 6 In the totality, the tribunal has awarded Rs.2,80,200/- to the claimant and that cannot be said to be low in any manner. I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-