1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.5069/2008 Mool Chand Badotiya v/s Shrawan Singh & Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 10th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Sandeep Mathur, for the appellant. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The injured-appellant has preferred preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in motor accident took place on 7.10.01 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 14.3.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.48,200/ with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim application i.e. 13.12.2001 upto the date of payment, in his favour as under :- Rs.7,200/- for loss of income, Rs.9,000/- for medical bills, nutritious food, transportation charges etc., 2 Rs.25,000/- for future loss of income, Rs.7,000/- for physical pain and mental agony. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is a meager amount and it is a fit case for enhancement of amount of compensation. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of issue No.4 relating to quantum of compensation wherein the Tribunal has observed that as per Ex 86, the interim permanent disability certificate, the appellant sustained 6% permanent disability. As per Ex 81, the injury report, the appellant sustained fracture. The appellant was working as massion. He was 35 years of age, therefore, looking to the nature of work and age of the appellant, the Tribunal awarded a lump sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards future loss of income The compensation under other head has also been awarded as mentioned above. The Tribunal is required to pass an award u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which appears to be just, fair and 3 reasonable. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the back ground of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Divisional Controller, KSRTC v/s Mahadeo Shetty reported in (2003) (7) SCC 197. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the amount of Rs.48,200/- awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it, is called for. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. Chauhan/