The legal principle established is that a claimant's occupation must be accurately assessed to determine appropriate compensation in personal injury cases.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The matter comes up on an application (1/2020) for condonation of delay occasioned in filing of the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 146 days is condoned.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is being heard and disposed of finally at this stage itself.

4. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant -claimant against the judgment and award dated 07.01.2019 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat District Pali in Motor Accident Claim Case No.15/2016, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant and awarded a sum of Rs.7,12,816/- as compensation with an interest @ 8% p.a. on account of injuries sustained by Parasmal in an accident which occurred on 21.09.2015.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the Tribunal erred in considering the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.5122/- treating him as an unskilled labour, however, it has come on record that the appellant was working as a mason. He further submits that statements of AW4 Kumbha Ram, private contractor under whom Parasmal was working as a mason, fortified the fact that the appellant was a Mason involved in the construction work. He, therefore, submits that at least the appellant should have been treated as a skilled labour instead of an unskilled labour. It is also contended that while computing the award monthly income of the appellant should have been considered as Rs.5642/-. The counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal awarded a meagre amount of Rs.7,12,816/- as compensation on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant in the accident, therefore, it is prayed that the amount of compensation should be enhanced suitably.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal while computing the award has correctly assessed the income of the appellant in the present case and has rightly evaluated the evidence brought on record, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the present case is a just compensation and the same calls for no interference by this court.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the bar, gone through the judgment dated 07.01.2019 passed by the Tribunal as also perused relevant record of the case.

8. The evidence to the effect that the appellant was working as a mason has been brought on record and same is fortified from the statement of AW4 Kumbha Ram, thus, it is established that the appellant was performing the work of a Mason under a private contractor Kumbha Ram in the construction activities. Thus, the appellant cannot be treated as an unskilled labour and the Tribunal should have considered monthly income of the appellant as Rs.5642/- while computing the award. Thus, while considering the appellant as a skilled labour, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is enhanced in the present case in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal.

9. In view of discussion made above, the appeal is partly allowed. The respondent- insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs.25000/- to the appellant-claimant in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry an interest @ 6% p.a.

10. The record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.