High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
KAMAL SINGH v LAKHWANT SINGH & ORS - CMA Case No. 634 of 2006  RD-RJ 1701 (18 August 2006)
CMA 634/06 //1//
Civil Misc. App. No.634/2006
Kamal Singh Versus Lakhwant Singh & Ors.
Date of Order ::: 18/08/06
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Mr.Jaiprakash Gupta for appellant (Claimant) 144 days time barred instant appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation of Rs.92,000/- awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (ADJ Fast
Track No.1) Beawar (Ajmer) vide Award dt.06/06/05 in
MAC No.621/04 (695/2000). While examining question of delay, I have also considered appeal on merits, as well.
Appellant (claimant) aged 30 years met with an accident on 26/10/2000 while carrying passengers in Tempo RJ-01-P-3271 driven by him but the Tempo was dashed by offending Tanker No.DL-1/GA-1043 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver as a result whereof, he sustained serious injuries resulting into 18% permanent disability.
As alleged in claim petition, he was earning monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- while working as driver.
After taking note of totality of facts, learned
Tribunal considered his monthly income of Rs.1800/- and based on it, awarded compensation of Rs.92,000/- along with interest 6% per annum from the date of claim petition vide impugned Award. Hence this appeal.
Counsel for appellant submits that looking to nature of injuries and fracture sustained by claimant appellant besides his 18% permanent disability, learned Tribunal ought to have considered income of claimant to the tune of Rs.3,000/- as pleaded in claim petition, which was not controverted
CMA 634/06 //2// by opposite party in rebuttal as no evidence contrary thereto has been placed on record; in such circumstances, the income assessed and also what has been finally awarded by learned Tribunal requires interference.
I have considered contentions of Counsel for appellant and with his assistance, examined material on record. Albeit claimant pleaded his income
Rs.3,000/- per month but there was no material placed on record by him in support of his pleading hence, in absence of sufficient evidence, learned Tribunal has rightly considered his monthly income as Rs.1800/-.
Looking to nature of injuries sustained by claimant in the accident in question, Medical Board in its report (Ex.35) opined 18% of permanent disability.
Based on permanent disability and taking note of totality of facts including that there were four injuries found on the person of injured and out of it three were simple and there was no such injury which certainly caused any impediment in discharge of his duties and on an overall conspectus of material, learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.92,000/-.
Keeping in view nature of injuries and fracture sustained and so also 18% permanent disability and looking to age of claimant, and in absence of sufficient evidence to support his monthly income of
Rs.3,000/- as pleaded in claim petition, what has been awarded and assessed by learned Tribunal, in my opinion, being just does not require enhancement of compensation on any of heads. Consequently, this appeal and so also application for condonation fail and are hereby dismissed in limine.
(Ajay Rastogi), J.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.