ARVIND SINGH Vs. KAJODMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the award dated 17th May, 1995 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 573/1991 whereby a sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty 9 thousand only) was awarded to the appellant for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The appellant seeks enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 19th December, 1990 the appellant met with an accident, while riding on a Scooter No. RRX -6020 was struck by a jeep bearing registration No. RNB -1497 as a result of which the appellant suffered h multiple injuries. It has further come in evidence that as a result of the aforesaid injuries, the abdomen of the appellant was ripped open and, consequently, operated upon in which his spleen had to be removed and his one kidney was partially damaged. As a result of the said accident, the appellant remained under treatment in the hospital from 19th December, 1990 to 29th December, 1990. The claimant -appellant amongst others produced in evidence A.W. 3 Dr. S.K. Pathak who has produced and proved the certificate (Ext. P -1 6) of the Medical Board, wherein the Medical Board has opined that on account of the said accident and the injuries received therein he was operated upon, one of the kidneys of the appellant was partially damaged and the spleen had to be removed, the appellant suffered 37.5% disability which reduced the immunity of the appellant which will make him more prone to the diseases. The appellant at the time of accident was 21 years of age and was a student of II year of M.B.B.S. It is the case of the appellant that being in the medical profession and being in touch with the patients suffering from various diseases, with his reduced immunity, he would be more prone to the diseases, as such, the disability in this case which was ignored by the Tribunal deserves to be considered and the amount of compensation be accordingly enhanced as per the provisions contained in Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the earning capacity on account of permanent partial disability of 37.5% has to be taken into account and the provisions of Item No. 6 of Second Schedule are relevant for the purposes since the appellant at the time of accident was a non -earning person being 'a student of II year M.B.B.S. and his notional income is assessed as Rs. 15,000 per annum. The appellant being 21 years of age, the multiplier adopted in such cases would be 17.