MURLI GURJAR Vs. HARI RAM & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-claimant has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the MACT, Tonk in Claim Case No. 189/09 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,21,799/- with interest @ 7% per annum for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident in question.

(2.) It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was working as driver and the Tribunal has considered his income only to the extent of 3500/- per month which was too less. He also submitted that the Tribunal has considered the disability of the appellant only to the extent of 12%, though the certificate produced by the appellant showed the disability to the extent of 20%. According to him the amount awarded by the Tribunal being too meager, the same deserves to be enhanced.

(3.) Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and to the impugned award it appears that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation considering the evidence adduced by the appellant as regards the nature of injuries sustained by him. It is pertinent to note that every disabilities arising from the injuries would not result in loss of earning capacities and the claimnt has to prove by cogent evidence that such disabilities shown in the certificate would adversely affect his earning capacity. In the instant case the appellant-claimant had failed to discharge the said burden. Even if it is believed that the appellant was working as driver, the appellant had not produced any evidence as regards the income and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered his income as Rs. 3500/- per month. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had not examined the concerned doctor who had given the disability certificate nor adduced any evidence that such disability would affect his earning capacity. Under the circumstances the Tribunal has rightly considered the disability of the appellant to the extent of 12% considering the nature of his work and applying the multiplier of 18 and has awarded just compensation of Rs. 90,720/- toward the loss of future income.