High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
NAV RATAN v JAI PAL SINGH AND ORS - SAC Case No. 78 of 2006  RD-RJ 1606 (17 July 2006)
D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.78/2006
NAV RATAN VS. JAI PAL SINGH AND ORS. 17.7.2006
HON'BLE JUSTICE MRS.GYAN SUDHA MISRA
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR.VINEET KOTHARI
Mr.Vinay Mathur for the appellant.
This appeal has been preferred by the claimant- appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge who although has enhanced the amount of compensation from
Rs.50,000/-, (which had been awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur city, Jaipur) to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, the claimant has felt dis-satisfied with this amount and has preferred this appeal.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the claimant-appellant that the petitioner had suffered 25% injury as a result of which his spleen has been removed and therefore the learned Single Judge has not awarded adequate compensation to the claimant-appellant by enhancing it to Rs.1,00,000/- only.
While considering the submission raised on behalf of the claimant-appellant, we have taken note of the Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 wherein it has been laid down that a claimant who has sustained grievous injury would be entitled to an amount of compensation for such percentage of injury which he would have received in the event of his death. Applying this principle we have noticed that the claimant-appellant was aged 17 years at the time of the accident, who was not earning any income and, therefore, his notional income would be Rs.15,000/- per annum out of which if 1/4th were deducted to which a multiplier of 16 had to be applied, he would have been entitled to a sum of Rs.45,000/- only by calculating 25% out of the total compensation if it were a case of death. The appellant has incurred approximately less than Rs.50,000/- towards his treatment and if this amount is added to the sum of Rs.45,000/- this would be approximately Rs.95,000/- which is less than Rs.1,00,000/-. As this amount has already been awarded by the learned Single Judge, we see no ground for further enhancement of the amount by us at the appellate state.
It is no doubt true that the claimant has suffered grave injury as a result of which, his spleen had to be removed from his body but it is also to be noted that the appellant, in spite of this removal, is leading a normal life. We have to bear in mind that any amount of monetary compensation cannot be substituted for the loss of an organ of the body and therefore a balance has to be struck while determining the amount of compensation. Since the appellant is leading a normal life in spite of removal of his spleen, we are of the view that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- enhanced by the learned Single Judge requires no interference as it is in consonance with the Schedule to the Motor Vehicles
Act as also after including his medical expenses. Thus, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which has been enhanced in favour of the Claimant-appellant by the learned Single
Judge, is sufficient in our view which requires no interference. This appeal, therefore, stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.
(Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)J.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.