GYANWARDHAN PARASHAR Vs. RAM LADETEY YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the claimant appellant for enhancement of compensation that was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide award dated 29/3/2006 awarding compensation of Rs.2,26,168/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident involving the vehicle insured with the respondent insurance company.

(2.) Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in assailing the award of the Tribunal is that deceased was working as a sales executive in M/s.Dunlop Tyres Company. His basic salary as per Salary Certificate issued by Falcon Tyres Ltd. Exb.57 at the relevant was Rs.1825/- per month and his gross salary was Rs.5999.13 per month inclusive of other usual allowances. In view of his disability of 63% in that his right leg was amputed, due to which his proficiency as a sales executive would be completely substantially reduced. His total income was proved to be Rs.14,000/- per month however the Tribunal has taken undue influence that after accident, when he was re-appointed as a Cashier in Essar Cellphone Company and was receiving Rs.3750/- per month and on that basis, awarded only a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- cumulatively for pain and suffering and permanent disability. No amount has been awarded for pain and suffering separately. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the appellant suffered disability of 63%, it does not mean that he was not working anywhere for earning his livelihood. Appellant was earning Rs.14,000/- per month in the year 2002 before accident and had a bright career. He is a post graduate in M.B.A. and prior to employment in the Falcon Tyres Company, he was working as a Sales Executive in M/s.Dunlop Tyres Company receiving salary of Rs.14,000/- per month. The Tribunal ought to have therefore awarded compensation while applying the structured formula of adopting multiplier of 18 keeping in view his age at the relevant time as 22 years. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that even if appellant was earning Rs.3750/- per month after accident while working as Cashier in the Essar Cellphone Company, Tribunal was not justified in not relying on the income of the appellant at the time of accident. Salary certificate of Mr.Ghan Vardhan Parashar Exb.56 of of Essar Cellphone Company dated 5/8/2002 is on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has also produced on record Exb.53 letter dated 21/5/2005 written by the Otto Bock Health Care India Pvt.Ltd. to petitioner as well as payment details dated 21/5/2005 to argue that the said Health Care Pvt.Ltd. estimated cost of Rs.1,33,000/- for TT Modular Prosthesis with C-Walk Foot and Rs.1,31,500/- for recurring cots for 10 years. Thus, total sum of Rs.2,64,500/- was estimated to be incurred by the said Health Care Pvt.Ltd. to be spent for artificial limb.

(3.) Only medical expenses of Rs.26,168/- has been awarded and that aspect has been completely lost sight of. It was argued that the appellant was engaged prior to accident but due to accident, his engagement was broken.