SBCMA NO.2246/2005. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.2246/2005. Kumari Lali Vs. Ramphool and others Date of order : 29/04/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ajay Gupta for the appellant. Shri Rajpal Choudhary for the respondents. ****** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) This appeal has been preferred at the instance of the injured, Kumari Lali being dis- satisfied with the quantum of compensation and with the prayer that same be suitably enhanced. 3) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was aged 8 years at the time of accident and was student of class 2. She sustained multiple fractures of tibia of left leg. It was argued that the medical board certified her permanent disablement to the extent of 11.6% and for that injury, she was operated upon and a steel rod was inserted in her leg. It was argued that due to the nature of injury, appellant would suffer for long life in that her physical movement would be restricted. Learned counsel further submitted that while Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, similar amount towards permanent disablement SBCMA NO.2246/2005. 2 i.e. Rs.23,000/- cannot be awarded under this head. The Tribunal has not discussed the evidence whatsoever while awarding Rs.23,000/- towards permanent disablement. 4) Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal and argued that it was a fit case in which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.23,000/- as compensation for permanent disability with similar amount being awarded on the head of mental agony and pain. Tribunal has also awarded sufficient amount of Rs.9,984/- for the medical expenses and separately Rs.5,000/- for nutritious diet holding respondents liable to pay a total sum of Rs.60,984/- severally and jointly under both the heads and, therefore, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the award does not call for any interference by this Court. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned-award, I find that the evidence adduced before the Tribunal prove that the appellant sustained injuries when she was 8 years of age leading to her permanent disablement of 11.6%. For a child of this age, even though she is residing in village, the version of the parent that she was student of class 2 cannot be so easily disbelieved in view of the spread of facilities of education even in the rural areas. The evidence also proved that there was compound fracture of the left leg and a steel road was inserted in her leg and skin was also grafted. The appellant was hospitalized on 17/5/2001 and had to be SBCMA NO.2246/2005. 3 operated upon on 21/5/2001 and was then discharged on 1/6/2001. Evidence was also adduced to the effect that due to this injury, appellant had suffered loss of senses in her left leg and that movement of that leg is also somewhat restricted. 6) Having regard to the facts of the case, I find that award for a sum of Rs.23,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on the head of mental pain and agony cannot be said to be insufficient or unjustified but the Tribunal was not justified by applying the same yardstick in awarding the same amount on the head of permanent disablement of 11.6%. Even if the appellant was a female child, that was no reason not to award reasonable amount for permanent disablement suffered by her to the extent of 11.6%. In the facts of the case, the appeal is partly allowed. While upholding the award of compensation on the head of medical expenses of Rs.9,984/- and towards nutritious diet of Rs.5,000/-, I enhance amount of Rs.23,000/- towards permanent disablement to Rs.50,000/-. The appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition only on the enhanced amount of compenstion. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil