NARENDRA SINGH Vs. NISHANT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by claimant dissatisfied with award dt. 19.11.2004 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge No.9), Jaipur City, Jaipur, in MAC Case No.93/2004 (122/2000), arising out of accident took place on 10.10.1998, in which appellant sustained 60% permanent disability on account of amputation of his right leg below knee. The appellant at the relevant time was a student. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,28,900/ - as compensation, which includes the sum of Rs.1,10,000/ - for permanent disability on account of amputation of right leg below knee, and remaining compensation was on other non -pecuniary heads. Contention of learned counsel for appellant is that appellant was a student of 22 years of age and that his entire life has been ruined because of amputation of his right leg below knee. The appellant was earning Rs. 2,000/ - per month by imparting tuitions etc. and, side by side, he was prosecuting his further studies of graduation. The Tribunal has erred in law in not holding the income of the appellant to be proved. Even as per Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was inserted in the Second Schedule, by Act No.54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994, notional income for compensation to non -earning persons who had no income prior to accident has to be accepted at Rs.15000/ - per annum. In the present case there was evidence that the appellant was earning by way of imparting tuitions etc. and, therefore, his income ought to have been accepted at Rs.2000/ - per month and on that basis the Tribunal should have computed the compensation. The award of Rs.5000/ - on the head of pain and suffering in the case like this where appellant's right leg below knee has been amputated, cannot be said to be justified.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly not accepted the income of the appellant to be proved because there was no proof produced in evidence on that aspect. Merely on assertion of the appellant it could not be accepted that he was earning Rs.2000/ - per month by imparting tuitions etc. Learned counsel submitted that compensation of Rs.5000/ - on the head of pain and suffering was just and reasonable, keeping in view that the accident took place in the year 1998. The award therefore deserves no interference.

(3.) THE appellants are thus held entitled to receive total compensation of Rs.3,08,700/ -. The appellants are also held entitled to receive interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date its certified copy is produced before respondent insurance company. The impugned award is accordingly modified. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.