JUDGMENT
P.S. Asopa, J.
1. The injured claimants have filed these three appeals for enhancement of the claim awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Tonk.
2. Since all these three appeals are arising out of the same accident and common awards have been passed in six claim petitions out of which three have filed the appeals, the same are being decided by this common order.
3. The facts, in brief, of the case are that on 28.5.1995 all the injured claimants were travelling in a bus of the roadways. At about 9.15 pm, a truck No. RJ 26-G-0285 which was being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the roadways bus, as a result of which all the aforesaid claimants sustained injuries.
4. Further facts of the individual cases are as follows:
SBCMA No. 704/2003 Pappu Dhobl v. Irshad and Ors.
5. At the time of accident, the claimant-appellant was 14 years of age and was a student of class IX. As a result of serious injury in the right his leg was amputated below the knee. He remained admitted in the hospital on 3-4 occasions and his leg was operated. Thereafter also, his treatment was continued and he has claimed medical expenses. On account of the aforesaid injury and amputation of the leg, the claimant has suffered 50% permanent disability. He has further claimed higher compensation under the heads of medical expenses and his marriage prospect has totally came to an end etc. An award of Rs. 2,41,000/- was passed in favour of the appellant by the claims tribunal.
SBCMA No. 706/2003 Kum. Shabana v. Irshad and Ors.
6. The injured claimant-appellant, Kumari Shabana filed the claim petition for Rs. 8,66,000/- on account of injury received by her in patella bone and permanent deformity of 3%. She has also claimed the expenses as well as compensation on the ground that she could marry and is not able to do her job after the accident, on account of physical and mental agony and continuous discharge of water from nose. An award of Rs. 30,000/- was passed in favour of the appellant by the claims tribunal.
SBCMA No. 710/2003 Mohammad Miyan v. Irshad and Ors.
7. Claimant-appellant Mohammad Miyan has claimed compensation on account of fracture in the color bone and has also suffered 7% permanent disability. He further submitted that he was labourer and earning Rs. 2500/- per month. In all, he was awarded Rs. 30,000/- by the claims tribunal as compensation.
8. Submission of the counsel for the appellant in all the three appeals is that the compensation awarded is on lower side. The claims tribunal has not properly awarded the claim on various heads and the claimants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation. As regards claim petition of Pappu, counsel has led much stress on the award of Rs. 10,000/- under sub-head for change of circumstances on account of amputation and no chance of marriage. In support of the aforesaid submission, the counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Kum. Ekta Khaitan v. Sita Ram and Ors. reported in 1999(2) TAC 284 (Raj.)
9. Submission of the counsel for the respondent is that the claims tribunal has rightly awarded the amount and the appellants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation, therefore, the judgment of the claims tribunal be upheld.
10. I have gone through the record of the appeals and considered rival submissions of the counsel for the parties.
11. The judgments cited by the counsel for the appellants in Kum Ekta Khaitan v. Sita Ram and Ors. reported in 1999(2) TAC 284 (Raj.) (supra) is distinguished for the reason that the injured was a minor girl of 14 years and her leg had to be amputated, thigh bones fractured, permanent discard on the face, which is not the case of the present appellants; although the leg was amputated in both the cases.
12. In the judgment cited by the counsel for the appellants in Pramod Kumar Mishra v. Ram Nath and Ors. reported in 2001(2) WLC (Raj.) 418 : RLW 2001 (2) Raj. 780, the disability was to the extent of 70% and the claimant was salaried person earning Rs. 3000/- per month, which is also distinguishable. Therefore, both the cases are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
13. In my view, in case of Pappu, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded on account of change of circumstances, on account of amputation of leg and no marriage prospects, is not proper and at least it should have been Rs. 60,000/-. As regards other head of 50% permanent disability and compensation of Rs. 2 Lac on account of injury, medical treatment Rs. 15,000/-, mental and physical agony Rs. 15,000/- are just and proper.
14. Therefore, the award is enhanced from Rs. 2,41,000/- to Rs. 2,91,000/- in Appeal No. 704/2003 Tiled by Pappu Dhobi. The appellant-claimant Pappu is also entitled for 9% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition.
15. As regards the claim of Kumari Shabana, the award of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 5000/- in other heads is just and proper, and total award of Rs. 30,000/- does not call for any interference. Therefore, in my view, the enhanced claim of Kumari Shabana is liable to be rejected.
16. In the case of Mohammad Miyan, there is 7% permanent disability and as per the schedule of Section 163A, the award of 25,000/- for injuries is just and proper. The award of Rs. 5000/- in other sub-heads of medical expenses. Physical and mental agony etc. are just and proper. Therefore, his appeal is also liable to be rejected.
17. In view of the above, the compensation in the claim petition of Pappu in SBCMA No. 704/2003 is enhanced from Rs. 2,41,000/- to Rs. 2,91,000/- and he will be entitled for 9% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition.
Accordingly, the appeal No. 704/2003 Pappu Dhobi v. Irshad and Ors. is allowed and appeals Nos. 706/2003 Kum. Shabana v. Irshad and Ors. and 710/2003 Mohammad Miyan v. Irshad and Ors. are dismissed, as indicated above.