RAFIQ, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS appeal has been preferred by Babulal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur. The appellant was driving scooter RNX- 8076 with his brother in law when the truck owned by respondent no. 2 and driven by respondent no. 1 hit the said scooter on 28. 6. 1994. As a result of the said accident, the appellant sustained four injuries leading to 13% permanent disablement. Shri Shobhit Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has awarded a consolidated amount of Rs. 20,000/- for the permanent disability whereas the Tribunal itself on the basis of salary certificate of the appellant awarded to him a sum of Rs. 15,700/- as the loss of income for unpaid medical leave of 113 days. It was argued that the appellant after retirement from the present service of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation due to the permanent disability of 13% would face difficulty in performing regular functions and earning his livelihood. Learned counsel argued that monthly salary of the appellant was Rs. 6,500/-and Tribunal has wrongly taken it to be a sum of Rs. 4,000/ -. It was submitted that the appellant was subjected to surgery on as many as three occasions and the award of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for permanent disability is wholly inadequate. He also argued that the award of sum of Rs. 4,000/- for four simply injuries is also not justified. Since the appellant had to remain hospitalised in total for 54 days and award of sum of Rs. 25,000/- for pain and suffering and mental agony is also not justified. Shri Anirudh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellant was in the employment of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and he continued to be in their employment and, therefore, it cannot be said that due to 13% permanent disablement, he would have any loss of income. Learned counsel submitted that award of Rs. 20,000/- as lump sump compensation for permanent disability in view of the fact that though the appellant was 43 years when the accident took place and would have still long time to retire, cannot be said to be inadequate. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- for four simply injuries as prescribed by Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for pain and suffering and mental agony, which is fully justified. It was argued that since the appellant had separately received the medical reimbursement from the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and he could not produce the bills before the Tribunal, so the Tribunal paid to him a sum of Rs. 340/- only for such of the bills which was produced and additionally awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/- for transportation charges and Rs. 2,000/- for nutritious diet. The award of the Tribunal is justified. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, I find that the award of the Tribunal upto the extent it has granted a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for pain and suffering and mental agony, Rs. 4,000/- for four simply injuries and a sum of Rs. 3,500/- for transportation charges and nutritious diet and another sum of Rs. 15,700/- for loss of income cannot be faulted. However, learned counsel for the appellant is justified in complaining that a lump sum compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for 13% permanent disablement could not have been justified. Even if the fact that the appellant would continue in service of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, till he retires, is taken into account, the period which he will have to spent after his retirement from service with disablement of 13% would still be a relevant consideration for award of compensation. The Tribunal ought to have therefore while considering the question for grant of compensation for permanent disablement, balanced the two factors. It could not completely ignore the factum of total disablement of 13% by awarding a sum of Rs. 20,000/ -. When the Tribunal has adopted the principles and the criteria contained in Schedule Second to the Act while granting compensation for simple injuries, it should have been adopted the same criteria for grant of compensation for 13% permanent disablement. The appellant being 43 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 15 would have been applicable to his case as per the Second Schedule, supra and even if his income as accepted by the Tribunal as Rs. 4,000/- per month is treated as valid basis, his loss of monthly income would be Rs. 520/- and which for one year would be Rs. 6,240/- and applying the multiplier of 15, the loss due to permanent disability for future income would have been Rs. 93,200/ -. If the factum of continued service of the appellant and the fact that no evidence has been brought on record that he would otherwise face in loss of future prospects or reduction in income from his salaried employment is taken into consideration, the above referred to quantum of compensation could at best be reduced by half. The quantum of Rs. 20,000 lump sum compensation, therefore, could not be justified at any rate.
(3.) IN the circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enhance the amount of Rs. 20,000 awarded as compensation for 13% permanent disablement to Rs. 50,000/- with the direction that the appellant shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation with interest at the rate of 7. 5% from the date of filing of claim petition before the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed. .;