Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Bhagwati - (1.) BY way of the instant appeal, the appellant has implored to enhance the quantum of compensation.
(2.) HEARD the Learned Counsel for the appellant and carefully perused impugned award dated 6th August, 2008 rendered by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the appellant sustained 10.30% permanent disability in an accident which took place on 18.7.2006. On account of this accident, he remained admitted in the hospital for five months and the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 13,500/ - towards the loss of income for a period he remained hospitalized. For 10.30% permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded global compensation of Rs. 45,000/ - towards the future loss of income and decreed total amount of Rs. 70,500/ - as compensation, which is abysmally low. Hence, the quantum of compensation needs to be be enhanced and impugned award needs to be modified.
(3.) HAVING heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and carefully scanned the impugned award, it is found that the Tribunal was already liberal in awarding the amount of compensation to the appellant. Albeit, the appellant is found to have sustained 10.30% permanent disability, but it is not proved that on account of this 10.30% permanent disability, his future earning also decreased proportionately to 10.30%. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., reported in, 2011(1) TAC 785 (SC), has categorically held that all the injuries do not result into the loss of future earnings. The appellant has utterly failed to produce any evidence so as to prove the loss of future earning capacity on account of 10.30% permanent disability. The Tribunal is found to have already taken very lenient view and despite there being no evidence with regard to loss of future earnings, awarded Rs. 45,000/ - under this head to the appellant, whereas, the appellant does not deserve to get this amount of compensation also. Since, the accident took place way back in the year 2006, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the award, but so far as the question of enhancement is concerned, the appeal is found to be frivolous and vexatious, which deserves to be outrightly dismissed.;