- (1.) SINCE these two appeals have been filed against one judgment and award dated 2.11.2006 passed by MACT, Jaipur, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. Brief facts of the case are as under: "On 4.5.2001, the claimant appellant and other persons were going from Jaipur towards Delhi by RSRTC Bus No. RJ-14-1P-0603. The bus was being driven by its driver rashly, negligently and with excessive speed. At about 3.30 AM when this bus reached near Paniyala on National Highway No. 8, it collided with a truck, parked on the road in accidented condition. Because of the collision, the claimant appellant and other passengers sustained serious injuries. "
(2.) THEREAFTER claim petition was filed mentioning therein that at the time of accident, the age of the appellant was 35 years. He is by profession an Advocate and earning Rs. 20,000.00 per month by practicing in Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur. He sustained serious injuries all over his body, specifically on his jaw, nose and right knee. There was a crack in his teeth and fracture in the maxilla bone below the eye. In the said claim petition, notices were issued, reply was filed, issues were framed, evidence was submitted and after hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs. 30,000.00 in favour of claimant appellant with interest @ 6% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant appellant has preferred the instant appeal for enhancement of compensation, while RSRTC has filed the appeal challenging the quantum of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that at the time of accident, the claimant was earning Rs. 20,000.00 per month, but now he is earning more than Rs. 2,00,000.00 per month, while merely a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. He has further contended that he has been treated in B.D.M. Hospital, Kotputli and thereafter in SMS Hospital, Jaipur. He spent Rs. 75,000.00 on treatment and due to his injury, he has suffered economically, physically, mentally and socially. He has further contended that the interest on the compensation amount should have been awarded @ 12% per annum instead of 6% per annum. He has drew the attention of this Court on issue no. 3 and 5 and contended that they have not been decided by the learned Tribunal after due appreciation of evidence submitted by him. The learned Tribunal has awarded a very meager amount. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, minimum Rs. 1,00,000.00 should be enhanced and the impugned award deserves to be modified. On the other hand, Mrs. Archana Matri, learned counsel for the RSRTC has contended that the truck was standing without indicating red light and there was no barricade around the truck to avoid the accident. She has further contended that all the issues have not been decided by the Tribunal in accordance with law. She has further contended that the claimant got only three simple injuries and he did not submit any Permanent Disability Certificate. Therefore, in absence of Permanent Disability Certificate and in view of the simple injuries, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is exorbitant.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that it is a fact that accident took place when the truck was standing, while RSRTC bus was being driven RSRTC by its driver rashly and negligently and he did not stop the bus. In the interest of justice, I enhance the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs. 30,000.00 on issue no. 3 and 5. The aforesaid amount shall be in addition to the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under the impugned award. Learned counsel for the RSRTC has requested this Court to grant four weeks' time to deposit the amount with the learned Tribunal.;