JAGJEET SINGH Vs. VIDHYA DHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 31 July, 1984. The Tribunal by its order dated 31 -7 -84 has awarded a total sum of Rs. 24,580/ - to the claimant. Aggrieved against this award, the injured claimant has filed the present appeal to suitable enhancement of the award.

(2.) THE brief facts, giving risk to this appeal are that on 18 -10 -80 A -one army truck collided against the scooter of claimant near Loko Shed Jodhpur, as a result of colliding with this army truck the claimant received fracture of the right leg and be was hospitalised for more than 6 months in the hospital. Therefore, the injured claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal and claimed Rs. 89,470/ -as compensation. The claim petition was contested by the non -claimants. The learned Tribunal, after considering over the matter, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - as a special damage on account of medicine, Rs; 1380/ - for charges for cottage ward, Rs. 3,000/ - for special diet and Rs. 4,200/ - for victim remained on leave from his job and he was sanctioned leave without pay. Thus a total sum of Rs, 9,580/ - were warded to the claimant. The claimant claimed a special sum of Rs. 15,000/ -for pain and suffering Rs. 30000/ - for future disability and a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - for loss of future employment. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,0 JO/ - as compensation under all these heads Mr. Ratan Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal should have awarded the damages claimed under the various heads instead of giving a composite amount of Rs. 15,000/ -. Learned Counsel submitted that as a result of this injury to his leg according to medical evidence his future efficiency has been reduced to 20%. In this connection, learned Counsel has invited my attention to the statement of Mr. Subhash Baveja PW 5, Learned Counsel submitted that at least the Tribunal should have assessed damage under this separate head.

(3.) NOW , coming to the other heads so far as future disability on r account of this injury is concerned the claimant has claimed Rs. 30,000/ -.The claimant was drawing Rs. 700/ - and 20% is a future disability i.e. 20% of Rs. 700/ -comes to Rs. 140/ -. The claimant was 27 years old therefore, in the present case a multiplier of 15 years should be employed and that comes io Rs. 25,000/ -. 1 think this amount of compensation is rightly deserved by the appellant, more so in statement the claimant has deposed that be has been removed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation on account of remaining absent for a period of 6 to 8 months: Thus, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/ as compensation under this head.