1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 488 of 1997 R S R T C V/S ABDU KADAR & ANR Mr. BS BHATI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. DILIP KAWADIA, for the respondent Date of Order : 6.11.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This appeal is by the Corporation against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dt. 11.12.1996 passed in Claim Case No. 356/1992. Since the findings about accident, negligence etc. have not been challenged I need not detain on this aspect of the matter. The only contention raised before me was that the amount awarded by way of compensation is excessive. I have considered the submissions, and find that the learned Tribunal at page-12 has considered this aspect of the matter, and found that the victim has suffered fracture of tibia of the right leg. The claimant was serving as a compounder, and was put under plaster for one and a half month, and had to remain on leave for 38 days. 2 He has deposed to be suffering continuous pain, and agony, on account of the injury and he cannot run and limps while walking. The learned Tribunal considered the documents produced on record, and found that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 5,000/- on account of loss of salary for the period of 38 days during which he had to remain absent. Then, Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded for nutritional diet, and another total sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded for pain and sufferings on account of the fracture. In my view, it cannot be said that the amount awarded under any of the heads is excessive requiring interference in appellate jurisdiction. The next submission made is that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation along with interest of 12%, and at the same time has also directed further that in the event of payment being not made within a period of one month, the amount shall carry interest at 15%, this stipulation of liability of enhanced rate of interest in case of non payment of amount within specified period is assailed, being not supported by law. On this aspect, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. Obviously, this type of stipulation is not contemplated by law, and is not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3 As a result of the aforesaid discussion the appeal is partly allowed. The amount of compensation awarded being Rs. 17,000/- is maintained. However, the stipulation of liability of interest to be 15% on payment being not made within one month is set aside, and the liability of interest will continue to be 12% only. The parties shall bear their own costs. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/