Bhanwaroo Khan, J.
1. Injured-claimant-appellant has preferred this miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 11.04.2000 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in claim case No. 976/1999, wherein the total award of compensation amounting to Rs. 85,000/- was passed in his favour.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.12.1998 at about 8.30 A.M. the injured-claimant-appellant, as a pillion rider, along with Babu Lal was going-on Scooter bearing RJ-14-7M-1282, a Truck bearing No. RJ-05-G- 0164 being driven by the respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently struck the said Scooter, which resulted into the injury i.e. shortening of half inch of his leg. In the claim petition preferred by the injured-claimant-appellant while awarding the compensation the learned Tribunal has not considered this aspect and has not awarded compensation for shortening of leg. On this ground the present miscellaneous appeal for enhancement has been preferred.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the both the parties and perused the material available on record.
4. The learned Counsel for the injured-claimant appellant pleaded that admittedly, as per the Certificate of doctor it is borne out of the shortening of half inch of leg because of the injury sustained by him. As per Certificate Exhibit-13, the learned Tribunal while passing award has not considered this aspect of the matter and has not awarded compensation for this fact. The shortening of leg will be there for throughout his life to come.
5. The learned Counsel for the injured-claimant appellant has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of Ram Chand v. Mangal Chand and Ors. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 773/1999 decided on 03.04.2008 and in the case of Kalu Ram v. Gajanand and Ors. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1911/2005 decided on 11.03.2008, wherein the additional compensation was awarded on the basis of shortening of leg.
6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the non-claimant-respondents pleaded that the injured has not specifically stated in his statement that his leg was shortened by half inch and the doctor in this case was not produced as a witness. In absence of the statement of the doctor the Certificate, so produced cannot be relied upon.
7. It is an admitted that there is a shortening of leg of the injured by half inch for which the Certificate Exhibit-13 has been produced by the claimant-injured.
8. This is an additional injury, which will remain with the injured for throughout his life and he has to bear with. The judgments, so cited have specifically dealt with the shortening of leg and the additional award for this shortened leg has been awarded while relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
9. I have perused both the judgments, cited above.
10. It is a fit case that the additional compensation for shortening of leg by half inch should also be awarded to the injured-claimant-appellant in the light of cited judgments. The learned Tribunal while considering the injuries has not considered this fact.
11. The above cited judgments has decided the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for shortening of half inch of leg and while relying on this judgment, I consider it proper that the additional award out of which Rs. 1,00,000/- should also be given to the injuredclaimant for shortening of his leg by half inch. To this extent, this miscellaneous appeal deserves to be allowed.
12. Consequently, this miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded to the injured-claimant-appellant is enhanced by Rs. 1,00,000/-, in addition to what has been awarded to the injuredclaimant- appellant by the learned Tribunal. The injuredclaimant- appellant will be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this claim petition on the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.