KRISHNA BASOTIYA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR YADAV AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Smt. Krishna Basotiya, has challenged the award dated 18.08.2011 passed by the Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots/MACT), Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.7,57,687/ - alongwith an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition to the appellant.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 27.02.2010, the appellant was going alongwith her husband on an Activa scooter from the Old Octroi Check Post towards the Queens Road. Around 11.00 P.M. when they reached at the turning point on Vaishali Marg, suddenly a car, bearing registration No.RJ14 -CB -3370, being driven rashly and negligently, came from the wrong side and hit the scooter. Consequently the appellant suffered grievous injuries as both her thighs were fractured, and the tibia and fibula bones of her right arm were equally fractured. While recovering from the said injuries, she had to undergo an operation. The doctors had to insert a steel rod in her legs. She was in the hospital from 27.02.2010 till 02.03.2010, and again from 02.03.2010 till 06.04.2010. Despite her recovery, she had suffered a permanent disablement of 25.7%. Eventually she filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate her case, she examined herself and her husband as witnesses and submitted 251 documents. The insurance company neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and the documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.

(3.) MR . K.N. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellant, has relied on the case of Narendra Singh v. Nishant Sharma and Anr. [Civil Appeal No.7109 of 2013, decided on 23.08.2013] and has pleaded that in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that considering the fact that the injury may not only debilitate a person, but may also lead to loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, the Tribunal should be generous while awarding compensation in the said category. However, according to the learned counsel, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has merely granted Rs.10,000/ - for mental and physical pain and agony. Therefore, the said amount deserves to be enhanced. Moreover, although the appellant had pleaded her income to be Rs.20,000/ - per month, the learned Tribunal has assessed her income as merely Rs.10,000/ - per month. Therefore, assessment of income is on the lower side. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be interfered with.