RAKESH THAKUR Vs. RAM LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal stands directed by the claimant/appellant herein, against the award pronounced, upon, M.A.C. Petition No. 12-FTC/2 of 2010, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Solan, wherethrough, he seek enhancement of compensation, as assessed, vis-a-vis, him, (ii) whereas, respondents No.1 herein/cross-objector, also prefer cross-objections, vis-a-vis, the impugned award, whereunder, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount, as stood determined qua the claimant/appellant herein, the, apt indemnificatory liability thereof, hence stood fastened, upon, him.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing, for the claimant/appellant herein, has contended with much vigour (i) that with rather ample evidence existing on record, and, its making upsurgings qua the claimant/appellant herein, hence, drawing a minimum salary of Rs.7,500.00 per mensem, from his avocation, as Supervisor under PW-2, factum whereof remains uneroded of its efficacy, (ii) thereupon, he has contended with much vigour before this Court, that, the learned tribunal, in, taking the per mensem income of the claimant, to stand, borne in sum of Rs.3,600.00, has committed, a, gross illegality. He further contends that the rearing, of, afore sum, of, Rs.7,500.00 per mesem by the claimant, was enjoined to borne in mind, by the learned tribunal concerned, (v) whereas, the learned tribunal concerned, for want of adduction, of, documentary proof, qua therewith, rather discarding the afore apposite claim, has under-assessed, compensation, vis-a-vis, the claimants. The afore submission has vigour, given PW-2, in his testification borne in his examination-in-chief, hence, categorically, voicing, that the claimant Rakesh Thakur, being employed, with him as Supervisor, and, his earning approximately Rs.30,000.00 per mensem from his avocation. Though, the factum of the claimant, earning Rs.30,000.00 per mensem, remained unproved on record, yet the claimant drawing a sum of Rs.7,500.00 per annum, stands proven by Ex.PW2/A, exhibit whereof comprises, a certificate issued, vis-a-vis, the claimant by PW-2. Furthermore, PW-2 in his crossexamination, makes an echoing qua his making the apposite payment to PW-2, through cheque(s), and, also the claimant concerned, renders an apt testification, in, tandem therewith, (i) hence, the afore per mesem rearing of income by the claimant, was enjoined, to be borne in mind, by the learned tribunal concerned, (ii) whereas, the learned tribunal concerned, for want of adduction, of, documentary proof, qua therewith, rather discarding the afore apposite claim, has under-assessed, compensation, vis-a-vis, the claimant. Furthermore, the counsel for the insurer, while holding PW-2 to cross-examination, has, meted an affirmative suggestion, vis-a-vis, him, qua the salary of the deceased, being comprised, in, a sum, of, Rs.7,500.00 per mensem, whereto an affirmative answer stood purveyed, by PW-2, (iii) thereupon, an inference is erectable qua the insurer, also accepting the afore echoings borne, in Ex.PW2/A, (iv) thereupon, it was inappropriate for the learned tribunal concerned, to, insist qua documentary proof, being adduced, vis-a-vis, the afore rearing, of, the afore per mensem income, by the deceased, (v) thereupon, the claimant is held to be earning, the, aforesaid sum of Rs.7,500.00, per mensem from his avocation. Consequently, the loss of monthly income is computed at Rs.7500x40%= Rs.3000.00, and, loss of annual income is computed at Rs.3000x12= Rs.36,000.00. Since, the injured/claimant at the time of accident was aged 32 years, hence, after applying the apt multiplier of 16, the total loss of future income computed at Rs.36,000.00 x16=Rs.5,76,000.00 (Rs.Five lakhs, seventy six thousand only).

(3.) Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has proceeded to contend, that, the learned tribunal, has, made an underassessment of the compensation, vis-a-vis, claimant, under the heads, pain and suffering, and, future loss of amenities and discomfort etc. On an incisive perusal, and, reading of the award impugned before this Court, as also material existing on record, this Court, is, of the opinion, that, the assessment of compensation, as made, by the learned tribunal, under the various heads, is, just, and, adequate, and, does not warrant any interference by this Court. Consequently, the afore submission addressed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the claimant is rejected. Consequently, the appellant/claimant is held entitled to a total compensation in the hereinafter extracted manner:-