High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
RAMANDEEP v GANESH MAL & ORS. - CMA Case No. 1003 of 2006  RD-RJ 1421 (19 March 2007)
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1003/2006.
Ramandeep Vs. Ganesh Mal & Ors.
Date of Order : 19th March 2007.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. J.S. Bhaleria for
Mr. H.S. Sidhu, for the appellant. ....
BY THE COURT:
For quantification of compensation to be awarded to the claimant-appellant Ramandeep Singh, about 26 years in age, the Tribunal has noticed the injuries sustained by him in the vehicular accident of fracture of humerus bone and hip joint; has referred to the bills of medical expenditure Exhibits 15 to 46, 50 and 52 to 57 and as against total bills of
Rs.48,000/- has allowed treatment expenditure at Rs.50,000/-; has referred to the bills of transportation Exhibits 48, 49 and 51 and as against the bills of Rs.14,270/- has allowed
Rs.15,000/- towards transportation. The Tribunal has further allowed Rs.20,000/- towards special diets and Rs.60,000/- for three months' loss of earnings taking his monthly income at
Rs.20,000/- with reference to the fact that he was having irrigated agriculture land and was also taking the land on contract basis. The Tribunal has yet further allowed
Rs.30,000/- towards pain and agony and in this manner has made the award of compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and has also allowed interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.
The award aforesaid is sought to be questioned in this appeal as being low and inadequate.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has been in error in awarding a meagre amount of
Rs.50,000/- towards treatment expenditure though the appellant has established his having spent Rs.1,50,000/- in treatment and there has not been any rebuttal by the non- applicants. Learned counsel further submitted that income deficiency has not been duly considered and the amount of
Rs.60,000/- as allowed by the Tribunal towards loss of income is grossly inadequate.
Having examined the award impugned in its totality, this Court is satisfied that the amount awarded by the
Tribunal cannot be said to be lower than that of just compensation admissible in this case. Mere oral statement about treatment expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- could not, obviously, have been relied upon by the Tribunal; yet the
Tribunal has taken a reasonable view of the matter and as against the bills of about Rs.48,000/-, has allowed treatment expenditure at Rs.50,000/-. The award of compensation on all other scores of attendants, special diets, transportation too appears to be reasonable. Contrary to the suggestion of loss of income, looking to its source with the appellant having irrigated agricultural land with him and also taking other land on contract basis, this Court is of opinion that the amount of
Rs.60,000/- towards loss of income appears to be rather excessive as it cannot be said that the entire land was being cultivated by the appellant on his own efforts. A reasonable part of loss of income due to engagement of extra labourers and due to loss of supervision could have considered for the treatment period of about three months; but in any case, an award of Rs.60,000/- in that relation appears excessive.
It does not appear to be a case of the appellant having developed any permanent disability that might reduce his earning capacity; and in the ultimate analysis, the award of compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- cannot be said to be insufficient. Moreover, the Tribunal has allowed interest @ 7.5% per annum and that too is not a rate on the lower side.
There appears no scope for enhancement.
The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.