SBCMA No.1426/07- Laxman Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1339/07- Meera Devi & Ors Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1340/07- Chena Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ::: JUDGMENT 1. Laxman Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1426/2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 9.11.2006 PASSED BY VIDHYA SAGAR TAK, RHJS, LEARNED JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MERTA (RAJASTHAN) PASSED IN MACT CASE NO.32/2005. 2. Meera Devi & Ors Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1339/2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 9.11.2006 PASSED BY VIDHYA SAGAR TAK, RHJS, LEARNED JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MERTA (RAJASTHAN) PASSED IN MACT CASE NO.27/2005. 3. Chena Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1340/2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 9.11.2006 PASSED BY VIDHYA SAGAR TAK, RHJS, LEARNED JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MERTA (RAJASTHAN) PASSED IN MACT CASE NO.31/2005. DATE OF ORDER : 17.12.2008 SBCMA No.1426/07- Laxman Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1339/07- Meera Devi & Ors Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1340/07- Chena Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. 2 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.SP Sharma,for the appellant. Mr.Nitin Trivedi ] Mr.Kishore Ranga ], for the respondents. Mr.Varun Gupta ] Mr. Rajendra Charan ] Mr. Dhanpat Choudhary ] <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. These three appeals have been preferred by the appellants-claimants because of the low award of compensation passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta in three claim cases no.32/2005, 27/2005 and 31/2005. The tribunal has decided 5 claim cases, but the aforesaid three set of claimants have preferred appeals to challenge the award dated 9th Nov., 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta. Brief facts of the case are that on 3.2.2005 the victims SBCMA No.1426/07- Laxman Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1339/07- Meera Devi & Ors Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1340/07- Chena Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. 3 including Jugal Kishore, Om Prakash, Hanumanram, Chena Ram and Laxman Ram suffered injuries while they were travelling in bus no.RJ 19 P 9771 and they were coming from Surat to village in the Rajasthan. The accident occurred near the town Sojat City when bus collided with truck trolla No.RJ 14-2G 4982. In fact, the bus hit on the back of the truck trolla resulting into death of three persons and injury to two persons. Both the vehicles' drivers and owners and Insurance Company were impleaded as non- claimants in the claim cases and issues were framed by the tribunal. The claim cases were consolidated and claimants gave oral evidence and produced voluminous documentary evidence, which includes the injury report, post-mortem reports, the documents obtained from the police investigation etc. For non-claimants only witness NAW-1 Deva Ram was examined and no documentary evidence was produced. The tribunal after appreciation of the evidence held that in the accident driver of the bus alone was guilty and because of his rash and negligent driving, the accident SBCMA No.1426/07- Laxman Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1339/07- Meera Devi & Ors Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1340/07- Chena Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. 4 was caused. This finding of fact is not under challenge and the appeals have been preferred by three sets of claimants on account of low award of compensation to them. In claim case no.32/2005, the victim was of the age of 23 years and he suffered amputation of his right hand for which the permanent disability certificate of 60% was given by the doctor. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the victim was working in the cloth business at Surat and he was coming from Surat to Rajasthan and during this travelling, he suffered injury resulting into amputation of his right hand. The tribunal assessed said person's annual income Rs.15,000/- as though he was unemployed person. There was no reason to disbelieve the statement of the claimants and looking to the age and place from where he was coming it could have been well presumed that he was engaged in the business. It is also submitted that even in a case where there is no much evidence for the income of the victim then also normally SBCMA No.1426/07- Laxman Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1339/07- Meera Devi & Ors Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1340/07- Chena Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. 5 Rs.24,000/- annual income is assessed by the tribunals and the courts. It is also submitted that amputation of one right hand of one young person, the compensate has been awarded for pain, suffering and mental agony and because of ruin of his future Rs.10,000/- only, whereas it must have been at least Rs.1,50,000/-. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the claimants could have produced the evidence with respect to his income but they did not produce any evidence. If he was in business, he could have produce some of the documents, which show that in fact he is doing business himself or at least he is in service with any trader. It is also submitted that in total compensation awarded to the claimants of RS.2,54,550/- is just and proper. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. The victim Laxman Ram was coming from Surat to his native place in Rajasthan and during this travelling he SBCMA No.1426/07- Laxman Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1339/07- Meera Devi & Ors Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1340/07- Chena Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. 6 suffered the injury resulting into amputation of his right hand. Technically it may be 60% disablement but so far as agony, suffering and pain are concerned of a young person of the age of 23 years cannot be assessed in any formula basis, but the award of compensation to the claimants on this count of Rs.10,000/- appears to be no compensation. This amount is required to be enhanced to Rs. 1 lac which is just in the case of amputation of one hand of young person. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the tribunal is increased to Rs.1 lac. The income of the victim was also assessed as of non- earning person. In the present time, it is difficult to believe that one person would not earn Rs.3,000/- per month when he is not employed or earing member. Therefore, after deduction of 1/3rd out of that income, the victim's loss to income can be assessed Rs.24,000/- per annum in stead of assessing Rs.15,000/- per annum. The victim suffered 60% disablement, therefore, his loss of income can be assesed to be RS.14,400/- per annum. The tribunal rightly SBCMA No.1426/07- Laxman Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1339/07- Meera Devi & Ors Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1340/07- Chena Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. 7 applied the multiplier of 17 then applying multiplier of 17 to the annual income loss to the victim comes to Rs.14,400x17= 2,44,800/-. The compensation on account of loss of income to the claimants is increased from Rs.1,53,000/- to Rs.2,44,800/-. The victim has been awarded reimbursement of expenses, which he suffered, which amount of Rs.87,550/-. The amount of Rs.87,550/- awarded to the victim on account of medical expenses etc appears to be just and proper. Rest of the compensation awarded are maintained. In view of the above, the total award to the claimants of Rs.2,54,550/- enhanced to Rs.4,54,050/- and the appeal of the appellant is allowed accordingly. Appellant shall be entitled to interest over enhanced amount @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition by him. In claim case No.27/2005 the victim Hanuman Ram died in the above referred accident and he was of the age of about 19 years. He was also working in the city of Surat at SBCMA No.1426/07- Laxman Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1339/07- Meera Devi & Ors Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1340/07- Chena Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. 8 Gujarat and according to the claimants he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The claimants' said contention was not accepted by the tribunal and tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum and gave deduction of 1/3rd out of it and held that the claimants suffered loss due to death of victim to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- per annum. The tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- to the victim on this count. As stated above, when victim was away from his native place and doing work in a different State at City Surat then he cannot be considered to be a non-earning person so as to assess his income Rs.15,000/- per annum only. His annual income is assessed looking to his age of 19 years only to Rs.24,000/- per annum. 1/3rd out of it required to be deducted then the dependents were put to loss of Rs.16,000/- per annum. The multiplier of 16 was rightly applied by the tribunal and if the multiplier of 16 is applied to Rs.16,000/- the annual income of the deceased SBCMA No.1426/07- Laxman Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1339/07- Meera Devi & Ors Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1340/07- Chena Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. 9 i.e., loss to the claimants comes to Rs.2,55,000/-. In view of the above, the claimants claim on this count is enhanced from Rs.1,60,000/- to Rs.2,55,000/-. The victim left behind his wife and mother. The award of compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the wife appears to be too low and it is required to be increased to Rs.25,000/-. The other compensation awarded which includes the compensation to the mother, on account of loss of his son is enhanced to Rs.10,000/0- and rest of the award is maintained as it is. In view of the above reason, the total enhance in the award comes to Rs.95,000+15,000=1,10,000/- and it is held that claimants are entitled to Rs.3,05,000/- in stead of Rs.1,95,000/-. Appellant shall be entitled to interest over enhanced amount @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition by him. In claim case No.31/2005 the victim Chena Ram was of the age of 22 years. He suffered severe injuries in his hand and he was operated and steel rod was planted. As SBCMA No.1426/07- Laxman Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1339/07- Meera Devi & Ors Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1340/07- Chena Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. 10 per the medical certificate, he suffered 60% of the disablement in view of the fact that his right hand became totally stale and of no use. It will be worthwhile to mention here that in earlier case where there was amputation and doctor certified disability of 60%, here it appears that the victim suffered injury to the extent of putting the right hand totally in stale condition and doctor has certified disability of 60% of the permanent nature. The victim said that he was working as Munim and was earning Rs.6,000/-. The tribunal has assessed his come of Rs.15,000/- per annum as this income is assessed for non-earing person. The assessment made by the tribunal in the facts of the case and the facts, which were taken into consideration in earlier part of the judgment while deciding the claim cases appears to be too low and it should be of Rs.24,000/- per annum looking to the person's age etc. Therefore, award of compensation to the claimants on this count is required to be assessed by taking into account the income of the victim to be Rs.24,000/- per annum and loss to the claimants is to the SBCMA No.1426/07- Laxman Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1339/07- Meera Devi & Ors Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1340/07- Chena Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. 11 extent of 60% that comes to Rs.44,400/- and multiplier of 17 was rightly applied then loss to the claimants comes to Rs.2,44,800/- in place of Rs.1,53,000/- on this count. The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of pain and suffering of the victim. The disablement is a loss of earning whereas pain and suffering are separate and independent in a case where one person's hand become useless stale then award of compensation of Rs.5,000/- cannot be said to be any compensation to the victim. It was virtually amputation, therefore, the amount equal to the amputation may not be awarded, but at least reasonable compensation is required to be given because the victim himself will suffer agony for his life. Amount of Rs.5,000/- on this count is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. An application has been submitted by the claimants under under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and placed on record the original medical prescription issued by the doctor which he had to take after accident. Those medical bills shows that the victim incurred expenses of Rs.28,283.50/-. The SBCMA No.1426/07- Laxman Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1339/07- Meera Devi & Ors Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. SBCMA No.1340/07- Chena Ram Vs. Dewar Ram & Ors. 12 tribunal has not awarded any compensation for future treatment of the victim and victim has proved that he is incurring regular expenses. In view of the above fact that victim has already paid bills of more than Rs.28,000/-, therefore, for future treatment compensation of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the victim. Rest of the award is maintained as it is. In view of the above reasons, this appeal is also allowed and the compensation amount in total is enhanced from Rs.2,28,000/- to Rs.4,14,000/-. Appellant shall be entitled to interest over enhanced amount @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition by him. Hence, all the aforesaid three appeals are allowed accordingly. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-