VINOD KUMAR GOYAL Vs. GULAB DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 29.03.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa [Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases], whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.70,000/- to the claimant-respondent No.1, Smt. Gulab Devi, for 10.07% permanent disability sustained by her in a vehicular accident, the appellant, the owner of the offending vehicle, has approached this Court.

(2.) SHORTLY the facts of the case are that on 04.12.2003 at about 2:00 PM, Smt. Gulab Devi, the claimant-respondent, was going in a Tractor, bearing registration No.RJ-V-3561. Mr. Raja Ram, the driver of the tractor, while passing through the side of the pond of village Chandrana, drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently, the tractor overturned. Smt. Gulab Devi sustained several injuries on her body. Hence, on 21.2.2004, she filed a claim petition against the appellant and the non-claimant-respondents No.2 and 3 before the learned Tribunal. The appellant and the non-claimant-respondents filed their reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made therein. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. After hearing both the parties, vide award dated 29.03.2010, the learned Tribunal, while exonerating the Insurance Company, allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.70,000/- against the appellant. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(3.) THE third contention raised by the learned counsel is a self-defeating contention. For, despite the fact that the claimant has suffered a 10.07% disability, the learned Tribunal has not applied the formula as given in Item No.5 of the II Schedule attached to the M.V. Act, 1988. In case the said formula were to be applied, the amount of compensation, which would be payable to the claimant-respondent, would be higher than Rs.55,000/-. For, according to the claimant-respondent, she was 40 years old when she met with the accident. Taking her to be a house-wife, she would be entitled to a assessment of her income as Rs.3,000/- per month. Thus, applying the formula given in Item No.5, in fact, she will be entitled to ruffly Rs.57,000/-. THErefore, the said contention would defeat the very interest of the appellant.