// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4718/2008 With S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.3091/2008 Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation & Another Versus Mangilal Son of Shri Ramnath and Another Date of Order ::: 03.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ankur Rastogi, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the appeal as well as on merits of the case also. So far as the delay in filing the appeal is concerned, the appellants have explained the same in Para Nos.2 and 3 of the application, which are reproduced as under:- “2. That the Appeal could not be filed within time because after passing of the award the matter was sent for taking opinion of the counsel i.e. to whether appeal is to be filed or not? After obtaining opinion of the learned counsel, the counsel of the department was contacted by the department and relevant papers were received from the // 2 // counsel, who has argued the case before the Learned Tribunal. 3. That the applicant applied dated on 13.5.2008 for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and award dated 12.5.2008 and received the same dated on 22.5.2008 and thereafter, opinion of filing appeal of the counsel was taken. After obtaining opinion, soon thereafter applicant filed the above- mentioned appeal before the Hon'ble Court.” The Para Nos.2 and 3 of the application, referred above, make it clear that the appellants have not mentioned as to when the information of judgment was given and when it was received by the Corporation, and thereafter how the file was dealt with and when the final opinion was taken for filing the appeal. The appellant is expected to explain the delay properly but above facts make it clear that the delay has not been explained satisfactorily, therefore, I am satisfied that no sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Apart from the delay point, I have also examined the merits of the case. The appellant Corporation has preferred this appeal challenging the impugned Award dated 12th May, 2008 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3 And the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota in Claim Case No.62/2007 (272/2007), whereby the // 3 // Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.52,750/- in favour of the claimant- respondent No.1 in respect of injuries sustained by him in a motor-accident took place on 29th September, 2006. The injured suffered 5% permanent disability and at the relevant time he was 47 years of age. The fact of permanent disability as well as age of the claimant has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants also. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellants is that while calculating the amount of compensation under the head of loss of income for 74 days the learned Tribunal has not deducted 1/3rd amount for the personal expenses of the injured-respondent No.1 and, therefore, it committed an illegality which needs to be corrected and the impugned Award is liable to be modified to that extent. The injured-respondent No.1 suffered 5% permanent disability as per the permanent- disability-certificate Exhibit-121 and he sustained two injuries on his person as per the injury-report Exhibit-70, and as per the X-ray report (Exhibit-71) the injury No.2 was found to be grievous and, after considering the same, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.31,000/- for physical pain and mental agony in view of // 4 // Exhibit-70, Exhibit-71 and Exhibit-121; Rs.1250/- towards nutritious food and transportation charges for five days at the rate of Rs.250/- per day during which the injured remained admitted in the hospital; Rs.3800/- for medical expenses and Rs.16,700/- for loss of income for 74 days; thus the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.52,750/- in favour of the injured- respondent. So far as 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, it is sufficient to mention that the same is normally deducted in death cases only and not in injury cases. Looking to the amount of compensation awarded under this head, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. It is relevant to mention that the Tribunal is required to pass an Award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. The amount of compensation should neither be a meager amount nor it should be a bonanza. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case cannot be said to be a bonanza and in my view it // 5 // appears to be just and reasonable amount, and no interference in the impugned Award is called for. After considering the number and nature of the injuries and looking to the percentage of permanent disability suffered by the claimant, I am satisfied that the amount of compensation of Rs.52,750/- awarded in the present case in favour of the injured-respondent No.1 is just, fair and reasonable, and no interference in it is called for. In view of the above discussion, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits also. Consequent upon dismissal of the appeal itself, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//