KISHORCHANDRA RAOLO Vs. JAYPAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present is an appeal under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, preferred by the Appellant-Claimant assailing the award dated 29.11.2011 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur, in Claim Case No. 115 of 2011.

(2.) Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal in an injury case sustained by the Appellant-Claimant awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,02,484/- with interest at the rate of 6% thereon from the date of filing of claim application, fastening the liability upon the Respondents to pay the same to the Appellant-Claimant. It is this award which is under challenge in the present case so far as quantum of compensation is concerned.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Claimant submits that the income of the Appellant-Claimant which has been assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The Appellant-Claimant had specifically submitted before the Tribunal that he was at the relevant point of time working in a private finance company and was earning around Rs. 5000/- a month but the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of Rs.3000/- as notional income. He further submits that so far as the grant of compensation under the head of future prospect is concerned the same is by now well settled right from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [2009 (6) SCC 121] as also in the case of Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others [2013 (9) SCC 54] and hence the Tribunal has erred in not granting compensation under the head of future prospects. He also submits that there is a specific pleading by the Appellant-Claimant which has also been supported by the evidence of Doctor that the Appellant-Claimant has suffered physical disability of 85% inasmuch as because of the fracture on his spinal cord both of his legs have got paralized and this fact has been proved by the Doctors before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 60% which should had been 85%. He thus prayed for suitable enhancment of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.