USHA Vs. HARI RAM RAIGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the award dated 29.10.194 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 566/1990 by which a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - has been awarded along with interest @ 12% per annum to the appellant on account of injuries suffered by her.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that on'9.11.1989 the appellant, was going in an auto -rickshaw bearing registration No. RNP 1655 at about 1.00 p.m. and on reaching Sisodia Garden, a jeep bearing registration No. RJL 6708 came from the opposite direction which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Hari Ram, the respondent No. 1, struck the auto -rickshaw in which the appellant was travelling as a result of the accident, the appellant received multiple injuries including a fracture of the left elbow, which had resulted in 39% disability as assessed by the Medical Board, constituted at SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur. For the injuries, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - as compensation in lumpsum. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellant has challenged the same and prayed for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal.

(3.) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that it has come in the evidence of Dr. M.K. Matur, who was the Member of the Medical Board, who examined the appellant and issued the Certificate (Ex. P.5) that the appellant suffered 39% disability on the left elbow and her ability and capacity to the work with the said arm consequently was impaired. In view of the aforesaid, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as per Item No. 6 of the II Schedule of M.V. Act, 1988, since the appellant was a housewife i.e., a non -earning woman, the provisions of Clause (a) of Item No. 6 of the II Schedule would be applicable and the notional annual income of the appellant would be assessed as Rs. 15,000/ - per annum. The parties are in agreement that the aforesaid notional income of Rs. 15,000/ - when multiplied by multiplier 17, which is applicable in the case of persons who are in the age group of 30 to 35 years, as the age of the appellant at the time of accident was 34 years as given out in the certificate (Ex. P.5) the amount of Rs. 2,55,000/ - is arrived at. Since, the disability is only 39% the compensation to be paid on account of loss of income and capacity to earn would be only 39% of the aforesaid amount which as per the learned Counsel for the appellant comes to Rs. 99,450/ -. In view of the aforesaid the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 99,450/ - (Rs. ninety -nine thousand four hundred fifty only) by way of compensation under the head of loss of earning and the amount already assessed and awarded by the Tribunal i.e. Rs. 25,000/ -is liable to be reduced and deducted from the aforesaid amount which as per the learned Counsel for the appellant comes to Rs. 74,450/ - (Rs. seventy -four thousand four hundred fifty only). In view of the aforesaid, the appellant would be entitled to an enhanced sum of Rs. 74,450/ - (Rs. seventy thousand four hundred fifty only) by way of compensation under the head of loss of earning.