IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for injuries must be based on evidence of actual income loss and the impact of disabilities on earning capacity.

ORDER :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. Both these appeals are being decided by this common order.

2. By way of these instant misc. appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act of 1988’), the appellants/claimants have sought enhancement of the compensation and has sought modification of the judgment & award dated 23.02.2015 passed by the learned Judge MACT, Rajsamand in MACT Cases No.191/2012 and 193/2012, respectively, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim of the claimants by awarding an amount to the tune of Rs. 1,07,000/- and Rs.9,10,000/-, respectively, @ 9% p.a. in their favour, while fastening the liability upon the respondent no. 2/owner and the respondent-Insurance Company.

3. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that on 06.09.2011, Saleem and his wife Sheikh Naseem Bano along with their son met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus bearing No.RJ-23-PA-2727 on account of which, Saleem and his wife Sheikh Naseem Bano sustained grievous injuries. Thereupon, they preferred claim petitions for compensation.

4. Subsequently, learned Tribunal issued the notices. Despite being served the notice, none appeared for respondent No.1 and therefore, ex-parte proceedings was initiated against him. The respondent No.2 and respondent No.3-Insurance Company in its reply denied all averments made in the claim petition.

5. In support of their claim petition, the appellants-claimants produced 2 witnesses and exhibited documents to prove their case. Oral as well as documentary evidence were also produced to prove the case. No evidence was produced in defence. As per pleadings, issues were framed by the learned Tribunal and after hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the award in favour of the appellants/claimants and being dissatisfied from the award, the appellants have preferred the instant misc. appeals.

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1005/2015

6. Learned counsel for the appellant makes a limited submission while disputing the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards the grievous injury suffered by the appellant-claimant, including a fracture in his left clavicle bone and the permanent disability suffered to the extent of 14%. He submits that the learned Tribunal has disregarded the evidence available on record in form of the Injury Report (Ex.11) and the Physical Disability Certificate (Ex.12). He also submits that the respondents have not rebutted the said certificate, in the absence of which the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the Physical Disability Certificate (Ex.12) while awarding the compensation.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant also submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in not providing any compensation towards the loss of future income inasmuch as the injury suffered by the appellant-claimant is a fracture in his clavicle bone, on account of which the appellant-claimant still faces difficulty in the normal course of activities and that, he is not able to move his hand properly and the movement of his shoulder is also restricted.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant also submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads of pain and suffering as well as loss of amenities is also on a lower side and deserves to be enhanced. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards the transportation expenses, against Rs. 20,000/- as claimed by the appellant-claimant. He further submits that the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is also on the lower side and thus, the same deserves to be enhanced.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and thus, the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant deserves to be dismissed.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

11. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has observ