- (1.) THE matter comes up on an application no. 12280 dated 1.6.2006 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, whereby the appellant has implored to condone the delay of 1198 days.
(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, the application is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and the delay of 1198 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the appeal also. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 21st November, 2002 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bandikui, District Dausa, whereby the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs. 72,520/- in favour of claimant and against the non claimants-respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that albeit the claim petition was filed by Jagan Singh S/o Ratan Lal on account of injuries having been sustained and loss of estate suffered by him, in an accident which took place on 23.4.1999, but after the award having been passed by the Tribunal, claimant- Jagan Lal expired, hence, the instant appeal has been filed by his son Jal Singh Gurjar, S/o Jagan Singh. He further canvassed that there was enough evidence before the learned Tribunal evincing the age of the injured to be 35 years, but the learned Tribunal arbitrarily determined the age of 44 years. The injured was having 2 bigha and 4 biswa of land in his name. He was an agriculturist and was earning money by selling milk also, but the learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income to be Rs. 2000/- only. He further canvassed that the injured remained admitted in hospital for about 18 days, but his loss of income has been assessed to be Rs. 1200/- and a meagre sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded for transportation, nutritional diet, attendant, pain and trauma. He further canvassed that the injured sustained 11.60% permanent disability and suffered loss of his camel cart, but the learned Tribunal did not award a single penny towards this head and applying the multiplier of 15, decreed an amount of Rs. 72,520/- only as compensation, whereas as per the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned award, it is noticed that the Second Schedule appended to M.V. Act envisages the multiplier of 16 for the age of 44 years of age. Hence, after applying the multiplier of 16, the loss of income on account of 11.60% permanent disability comes to Rs. 44,544/-. For the loss of estate, I am of the view that if an amount of Rs. 2500/- is awarded under this head, it would meet the ends of justice. Further the amount awarded under the head of of transportation, nutritional diet and pain and trauma is found to be at lower side. Hence, if an additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded under this head, it would also sub-serve the purpose. Hence, after adding Rs. 2784/- (Rs. 44,544 Rs. 41,760) towards loss of future earning; Rs. 2500/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 20,000/- (additional amount under the head of transportation, nutritional diet and pain and trauma), the appellant shall be entitled to receive an additional amount of Rs. 25,284/- from the non claimants - respondents and hence, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 97,804/-. Thus, the appellant is held entitled to claim an amount of Rs. 97,804/- instead of Rs. 72,520/- from the respondents non-claimants. The appellant is also held entitled to claim interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing the claim petition till the amount is actually realized. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. The impugned award stands modified, as indicated here-in-above.
(3.) IN the result, the appeal stands partly allowed.;