HEMRAJ Vs. ABDUL MAZID KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in motor accident that took place on 19.01.2003 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dead 24.07.2007 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 449/2006, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,66,460/- in his favour with interest @6% p.a. from the date of claim application i.e. 22.07.2005 till the date of payment as under: Rs. 4,46,760/- towards loss of income,Rs. 1,000/- for third simple injury,Rs. 18,700/- for medical bills.

(2.) The only grievance of the learned counsel fpr the appellant is that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in not awarding any amount of compensation under the head of physical pain & mental agony, transportation charges, nutritious food and attendant expenses.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned award, particularly, the finding of issue No. 4 relating to quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the finding of the Tribunal in respect of age, income of the appellant and multiplier of 17 applied in the present case for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation under the head of loss of income. As per injury report Ex.2, the appellant sustained three injuries. Two injuries were sustained in legs and third injury was simple in nature. As per Ex.14, permanent disability certificate, the appellant suffered 88.89% permanent disability. There was amputation of both the legs. It is correct that no specific amount has been awarded by the Tribunal towards physical pain & mental agony, transportation charges, nutritious food and attendant expenses. But all these heads have been mentioned in Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereas the present claim application was filed u/s. 166 r/w 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is true that normally the Second Schedule is applied as far as possible in claim application filed u/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, also. However, it is settled law that the Tribunal is required to pass an award u/s. 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which appears to be "just", fair and reasonable. Neither it should be a meagre amount nor it should be a bonanza.