1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR J U D G M E N T S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2166 of 2000. Ramji Lal son of Shri Raja Ram. VERSUS Naimuddin son of Shri Sarfudin and Another Date of Judgment :::: 30/04/2009. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhanwaroo Khan Mr. L.L. Gupta, Counsel for the Claimant/Appellant. Mr. Pradeep Singh, for the Respondent no.2-company . By the Court : Injured-claimant-appellant has preferred this miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 15.09.2000 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur, in M.A.C.T. Case No.9/2000, wherein total compensation in a sum of Rs.1,09,362/- was awarded in his favour. The injured-appellant has preferred this miscellaneous appeal for the enhancement of the awarded compensation. 2 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as record of the learned Tribunal. The arguments put-forth by the learned counsel for the injured-claimant-appellant is that the learned Tribunal has not considered the compensation on the basis of the Disability Certificate, which speaks about 40% disability, as per Exhibit 42, issued by the Medical Officer & Junior Specialist in Orthopedics, General Hospital, Sawai Madhopur. The learned Tribunal only discarded this certificate on the basis of the non- production of the doctor, who issued this Medical Certificate. The learned counsel for the injured-claimant- appellant has cited 2006 (2) C.D.R. 1790 (Raj.) (Kajodmal Vs. Ram Karan and Others and argued that it is not the requirement of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules that the disability certificate should be issued by the Medical Board. This disability certificate (Exhibit-42) has been issued by the Medical Officer & Junior Specialist in Orthopedics, General Hospital, Sawai Madhopur. The learned Tribunal should have considered this disability certificate and he should have decided compensation on 3 the basis of the certificate issued, therefore, this illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal. The compensation should have been allowed on the basis of the disability, which was incurred by the injured- claimant. The income of the claimant of his being an agriculturists, as per his statement is Rs.7000/- per month, though, he has not led any evidence. Learned counsel for the injured-claimant- appellant has also placed reliance in the case of Ghan Shyam Vs. Ashok and Others (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.28/2000) decided on 26.03.2009, wherein it has been held that in absence of any formal proof of the income the income can be based on the basis of the daily wagers @ Rs.68/- per day. If this income Rs.68/- per day is taken into consideration, then for 40% disability the total amount comes out to Rs.1,56,672/- (68x30x12x16 x40/ 100), as multiplier of 16 looking to the age of the injured has been applied. The injured-appellant sustained eight-fractures on his body. The compensation for each grievous injuries comes out to Rs.40,000/- and Rs.3362/- for the medical expenses, then total compensation should have been given to the injured comes out to Rs.2,00,010/-, which as per the Rules the injured- 4 appellant is entitled. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation Rs.1,09,362/- only, now as per this calculation, the injured-appellant will be entitled to Rs.90,638/- in addition to what the learned Tribunal has awarded as compensation. To this extent, this miscellaneous appeal deserves to be allowed. Consequently, this miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. The injured-appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.90,638/- in addition to what the learned Tribunal has awarded to the claimant-appellant. The injured-claimant is entitled for the interest on this enhanced amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The responsibility/liability of the respondent will be same, as per directions given by the learned Tribunal. (Bhanwaroo Khan) J. ashok/ 5