Judgment:
ORDER
N.K. Jain, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2.The injured-appellant-Madan Lal has filed this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment/award dated 14.12.1993 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in MACT Case No. 1064/89.
3. The Counsel for the appellant contended that in this case the injured sustained 50% permanent disability whereas the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 25,000 as compensation in respect of 50% permanent disability. He further submits that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,451 per month and his age was only 55 years at the time of accident, therefore, proper multiplier which ought to have been adopted in this case by the learned Tribunal was 11 looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case. His submission is that if multiplier of 11 is adopted then the amount of compensation for 50% disability comes to Rs. 1,61,766, therefore, his submission is that amount of compensation should be enhanced in respect of compensation for permanent disability. The Counsel for the appellant has not challenged the amount of compensation awarded on account of mental agony and physical pain and under other heads.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and this is not a fit case for enhancement of the amount of compensation. He further submits that method of applying of multiplier is only in respect of loss of income and not for permanent disability, therefore, no amount should be enhanced in the present case by applying multiplier method.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned judgment as well as record of the Trial Court. In the present case Dr. M.K. Mathur A. W. 3 was examined on behalf of the claimant-appellant who has stated that as per principles mentioned in the Manual for Doctors to evaluate permanent physical impairmnet, the injured sustained 50% permanent disability and he has issued the certificate Ex. 5 in the present case which is on record.
6. So far as the income of the appellant is concerned, the same has not been disputed by the Counsel for the respondents also, for the reason that the appellant was the Govt. Servant and he was receiving salary. A salary certificate Ex. 7 has also been placed on record wherein the salary of the appellant has been mentioned as Rs. 2,713 per month.
7. I have also examined the statement of P.W. 1 injured appellant, P.W. 2 Satya Narayan, P.W. 4, Han Narayan, A.W. 5 Dr. Vivekanand Goswami, A.W. 6, I Iardev Prasad Kuldeep.
8. The learned Tribunal, while discussing issue No. 3, has not awarded any amount of compensation on account of loss of income of the appellant but has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000 for diet and transportation, Rs. 2,000 for mental and physical agony, Rs. 25,000 for permanent disability and Rs. 10,000 for loss of expectancy of life. The total amount of Rs. 60,000 has been awarded by the learned Tribunal.
9. After considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and after examining the statements of the applicant witness as referred above, this Court is of the opinion that amount of compensation awarded in the present case where appellant has sustained 50% permanent disability on the head is inadequate and this is a tit case for enhancement of the amount of compensation, therefore, I think it just and reasonable to enhance the amount of compensation from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 1,10,000. The appellant has already been paid Rs. 60,000, therefore, the respondents are directed to pay remaining amount of Rs. 50,000 to the claimant appellant within a period of two months from today along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application i.e., 15.11.1989 till the date of realisation. The amount will be deposited in the Tribunal and Tribunal is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation in the monthly income scheme in the Post Office in the name of appellant for a period of six years and appellant will be entitled to receive monthly interest.
10. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.