1
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2594/2007
Prakash. vs. Ramesh Chandra & Ors.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2594/2007
Prakash. vs. Ramesh Chandra & Ors
Date : 10.9.2008
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr.S Saruparia, for the appellant.
Mr.TRS Sodha, for the respondent no.3.
– – – – –
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant
for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand in MACT Case
No.332/2004 vide judgment and award dated 4.12.2006.
According to learned counsel for the appellant,
the appellant was of the age of 10 years only at the
time of accident and he suffered several injuries and
most grave is amputation of his leg below knee. The
doctor certified 75% permanent disablement. The learned
tribunal though accepted the claim of the appellant but
while considering his disability, after holding that
the appellant is entitled to Rs.2,17,000/- on account
2
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2594/2007
Prakash. vs. Ramesh Chandra & Ors.
of future loss of income instead of awarding 70% of the
amount, awarded only 60% of the amount, thereby, the
learned tribunal committed error.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted
that on account of pain, suffering and amputation of
leg and affecting his present life as well as in future
as a whole including his future married life, the
learned tribunal awarded only Rs.35,000/-. According to
the appellant, this amount should be increased to
Rs.1,00,000/-
Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 –
insurance company submitted that the tribunal has
awarded in total Rs.2,56,000/- and that itself is
excessive and, therefore, there is no reason to
increase the amount on any account. It is also
submitted that the entire aspect has been decided by
the Tribunal while deciding the question of loss of
future income and while doing so, the learned Tribunal
considered the fact that the appellant suffered
amputation of his leg and, therefore, the award, which
in fact is excessive, may not be increased.
I considered the submissions of learned counsel
for the parties and perused the reasons given in the
3
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2594/2007
Prakash. vs. Ramesh Chandra & Ors.
impugned award as well as the record.
The Tribunal assessed income of the appellant as
Rs.15000/- per annum and looking to the age of the
appellant, applied multiplier of 18 and held that the
appellant’s income to be Rs.2,70,000/- and while
assessing compensation, granted 60% of the same while
relying upon the judgment delivered in the case of
Prabhu Mehta vs. Jagannath & Ors. reported in 2005 RAR
187, wherein the compensation of 60% of the loss of
income was awarded to a person who suffered amputation
of leg. The tribunal erred in doing so because of the
reason that each case is required to be decided
according to the facts of each case. When the doctor
has certified that the appellant suffered 70%
disability and unless there is any other reason, there
was no cause for the Tribunal to compute the
compensation less than 70%. At this juncture, it will
be relevant to mention here that the appellant was of
very young age of 10 years and he had to face the
consequences of this amputation for ever, therefore,
the appellant’s agony cannot be lessened as he is to
suffer the agony every day. He is yet to be married
and, therefore, while computing the compensation, there
cannot be a straight jacket formula. The award of
4
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2594/2007
Prakash. vs. Ramesh Chandra & Ors.
Rs.35,000/- is too low and is required to be enhanced
to Rs.75,000/-
In view of the above reasons, taking into
consideration all the facts, the appellant is held
entitled to Rs.1,89,000/- on account of his loss of
income in place of Rs.1,62,000/- as awarded by the
tribunal. The appellant is also entitled to Rs.75,000/-
on account of his sufferings and future agony in place
of Rs.35,000/-. Rest amount awarded is maintained.
In view of the above, the amount awarded by the
Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,56,000/- to
Rs.3,23,000/-. The appellant shall be entitled to
interest as awarded by the Tribunal on the enhanced
amount from the date of the order passed by this Court.
Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
S.Phophaliya