RAJU Vs. NAND KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant Raju for enhancement of the amount of compensation on account of personal injury suffered by him, as a result of which his right leg below the knee has been amputated. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kota, has been pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 2,01,000 only to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of payment and in the event of failure to make the payment within three months, the appellant has been held entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. The Tribunal has further chalked out an arrangement regarding the disbursement of this amount by directing that out of the total compensation amount, Rs. 20,000 shall be deposited in a savings bank account in a nationalised bank and the remaining amount along with the interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of thirty years and the interest occurring thereon shall be paid to the appellant after every three months. No costs have been awarded to claimant- appellant for the proceedings.

(2.) Since the factum of the accident due to which the claimant-appellant suffered the injury is not under challenge nor it could be challenged that the appellant suffered the injury due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing No. RJ 20-C 4952 which hit the scooter, it would not be essential to enter into the scrutiny of evidence in this regard. Suffice it to say that the appellant suffered grave and serious injury on his right leg on account of the accident caused by the aforesaid jeep which hit his scooter which he was driving and consequently his right leg below knee had to be amputated. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kola on an analysis and scrutiny of the evidence adduced by claimant has recorded that the claimant was an auto electric mechanic and out of this vocation he earned Rs. 2,000 per month, who had to incur Rs. 50,000 on his treatment. After the accident he is totally incapacitated due to which he has suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss. In regard to the pecuniary loss, the Tribunal has been pleased to record a finding that although the claimant has lost one of his legs he is not totally disabled since he can still continue the job of a mechanic by sitting on the floor and supervising the repair of autorickshaws. Since the claimant was not educated and had no dependency on him, who himself claimed his income as Rs. 2,000 per month, the Tribunal thought it proper that only that amount may be kept in fixed deposit which could fetch Rs. 2,000 by way of interest.

(3.) The insurance company on its part had contended before the Tribunal that the claimant also is guilty of contributory negligence due to which he was injured in the accident but the Claims Tribunal has disbelieved the plea of insurance company and has recorded a finding that the claimant cannot be held guilty of contributory negligence. As there was no cross-appeal preferred by the insurance company challenging this finding, this court cannot enter into a scrutiny of the plea of contributory negligence while considering the plea of enhancement raised by injured-claimant. Therefore, the only consideration before this court is whether the claimant who has lost his right leg in the accident has rightly been awarded Rs. 2,01,000 towards compensation due to personal injury suffered by him.