LAWS(RAJ)-2008-8-3

NANGA JI Vs. AJIJ MOHAMMED MANSOORI

Decided On August 20, 2008
Nanga Ji Appellant
V/S
Ajij Mohammed Mansoori Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is being decided at the admission stage itself. Having suffered permanent disability of 15% permanent disability, and having been awarded a meager amount of Rs. 41,534/ -, the appellant has challenged the award dated 13.06.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Beawar (in short, 'the learned Tribunal').

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 26.07.2004, the appellant. Nanga Ji, alongwith two other persons, was traveling on a motorcycle. When they reached near a petrol pump at Vanas, Devpura turn, a truck, bearing registration No. RJ -09 -F -2049, being driven rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle. Resultantly, the appellant sustained injuries. The appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has granted the compensation amount as aforementioned. Being aggrieved by the said amount, the appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement.

(3.) Mr. J.P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised two contentions before this Court: firstly, the leaned Tribunal has erred in deducting one -third of the income earned by the appellant. According to the learned counsel, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act') permits the deduction of one -third from the income only in the cases of death and not in cases of injuries. In order to buttress his contention, he has referred to the Second Schedule attached to the Act. Secondly, the learned Tribunal has erred in imposing a condition that until and unless the owner of the vehicle submits security, the compensation amount shall not be released to the claimant. According to the learned counsel, this is an unreasonable condition being imposed, as the condition is contrary to the provisions of sub -section 4 of Sec. 149 of the Act. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case Kumari Nargis & Ors. Vs. Karan Singh & Ors. (2007 (1) TAC (Raj.)).