SHYO BIHARI GOTHWAL Vs. BAJARANG LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FROM a human life dent between a car and jeep. On 3. 9. 1997 to a vegetative state is the long distance, around 11. 30 p. m. , while the appellant was the appellant has covered in a short acci- travelling in a car with some of his friends they met with an accident with a jeep at jhotwara in Jaipur. Appellant was grievously injured as he had sustained injuries on his head, backbone and the lower limbs. Consequently, he suffered the malfunctioning of the brain and the paralytic effect on the body. Although the appellant was working as electrician prior to the accident, when he was brought into the court he could neither walk, nor stand, he could neither talk, nor sit properly. A human being was suddenly reduced to a scarecrow figure. Needless to say, the appellant had filed a claim petition before Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Jaipur. Vide award dated 16. 9. 2002, learned Tribunal was pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 2,25,000. However, since the appellant was not satisfied with the said compensation, he has filed the present appeal before us.

(2.) MR. K. N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, had vehemently argued that the appellant was a young man of 30 years when he met with the near-fatal accident. He was working as an electrician and was earning somewhere between Rs. 2,000 and rs. 2,500 per month. However, the Claims tribunal has erroneously concluded that he was earning merely Rs. 500 per month. Such a conclusion is unwarranted by any evidence. Therefore, the said conclusion cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Moreover, he has argued that item No. 5 of the Second Schedule attached to the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', for short) prescribes a formula for calculating the compensation which shall be payable in case of disability in a non-fatal accident. The Tribunal has not followed the said formula. Therefore, the calculation made by it is extremely low.

(3.) MR. J. P. Goyal, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that considering the fact that the accident took place in the year 1997, a just and reasonable compensation has been paid to the appellant. Therefore, he has supported the impugned award.