BABU LAL Vs. HANUMAN PRASAD AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by claimant-appellant-Babu Lal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation i.e. awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur to the tune of Rs.3,16,891/-, with the prayer to enhance the same to the reasonable sum.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that on 6/7/1994 at about 8.00 pm, appellant was travelling in the bus bearing No.RJ 14-P-3739 of respondent No.2-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, the "RSRTC"), which was being driven by Shri Hanuman Prasad respondent No.1. When the passengers were stepping down from the bus near Ramgarh Mod, the driver suddenly started the bus, as a result of which, appellant fell down from the stairs of the bus and was crushed under the rear tires of the bus. He thereby sustained grievous injuries on his left leg. His left leg was completely crushed and it had to be amputed from below the knee.

(3.) Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of the driver of the bus. His left leg was completely amputed from the knee and resultantly, he sustained 75% permanent disability but the learned Tribunal erred in law while awarding only a lump sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the permanent disability of 75%, which is wholly unreasonable and inadequate. Learned Tribunal did so relying on the judgment of this Court rendered in Jitendra Singh @ Jai Singh Vs. Islam & Ors., 2000 1 ACC 34, wherein Rs.3,00,000/- were awarded for disability of 55%, whereas in the present case, permanent disability of the appellant was assessed at 75%. Even if the appellant was a government servant working on the post of Head Constable receiving salary of Rs.3,500/- per month, yet he ought to have been awarded reasonable compensation before he would have to suffer consequence of this disability throughout his life and even after retirement. Learned Tribunal also erred in law in not awarding any amount under the heads of 'pain & suffering' and for 'attendant'. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the appellant at the relevant time was 44 years, computation of compensation should have been made by applying the multiplier of 15 on the structured formula.