Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.

Both the civil misc. appeals arise out of common judgment and award 8.2.2016 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special) Court, Communal Riots), Jaipur ('the Tribunal' for short hereinafter), hence same are being decided by a common judgment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed claim petitions against the respondents before the Tribunal claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss suffered by them due to grievous injuries in an accident taken place on 19.12.2010 at 3.30 P.M. nearby Hari Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur due to rash and negligence of the car driver bearing No. RJ-14-CH-7507. Claimants further submitted in their claim petitions that they were going to Malviya Nagar by their Kinetic Scooter No. RJ-14-23M-7750. When they reached nearby Hari Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, then suddenly aforesaid car came with fast speed and hit the claimants Kinetic Scooter. The claimants further mentioned in their claim petitions that the driver of the car was driving the same with rash and negligent manner. In the result the claimants fell down and sustained grievous injuries. They further submitted against respondent No. 1-Mukesh Sharma and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against him.

3. The claim petition filed by the claimant Smt. Manju Lata Pareek was registered as claim petition No. 772/2015 (1602/2011) and the claim petition filed by the claimant Amar Nath Pareek was registered as 773/2015 (1601/2011). Thereafter, notices were issued to the respondents. Replies to the claim petitions were filed. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal framed four issues. The claimants appellants in support of their case produced three witnesses and got exhibited certain documents three witnesses and go exhibited certain documents which include the police and medical documents, whereas the opposite party did not produce any oral or documentary evidence.

4. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned judgment and award dated 8.2.2016 in both the claim cases.

Submissions of SBCMA No. 1800/2016 (Smt. Manju Lata Pareek v. Mukesh Sharma Anr.)

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant appellant Smt. Manju Lata Pareek has submitted that the impugned judgment and award dated 8.2.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal is against the facts available on record and law applicable. Counsel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed gross error and illegality while deciding the issue No. 4 because it is well proved that in the aforesaid accident she sustained grievous injuries and having fracture of Zygoma and left hand and plastic surgery of face was done by Dr. Bhargava and Dr. Shailendra Sharma. She also sustained fracture of maxilla and humerus bone and having 15.15% permanent disability and she remained hospitalized for several days. Due to these injuries movements of left shoulder is restricted, faces difficulty in lifting over head objects and opening jaw. But the learned Tribunal did not award any amount for permanent disability which is contrary to provisions of Motor Vehicles Act as well as the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. Counsel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed gross error and illegality while awarding pity amount in the head of viz. 1. Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries, 2. Loss of amenities, 3. Loss of expectation of life. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for each head, which is quite lower. Counsel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has further erred for warding the rate of interest 6% p.a. in-stead of 9% p.a. In support of his case, the-Counsel has placed reliance on the Judgments such as Smt. Neeta W/o Kadolkar and others v. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhpur reported in MACD 2015 (SC) 66 wherein it has been held that the interest should be 9% p.a. Thus, rupees two lacs be enhanced on issue No. 4 in addition