Anil Sharma vs Ram Parkashh Sawhney And Others

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded to him by the Motor Accidents Claim

Tribunal, Jammu (for short the Tribunal) by virtue of award dated 30.04.2010, on the grounds that the appellant had proved the income of Rs. 9000/-

per month from his agriculture pursuits and he had also proved that he was paying Rs. 3000/- per month as salary to the Tractor driver and hence, the

agriculture income has been reduced because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. It is also stated by the appellant that the Motor Cycle

bearing registration No. JK 02Q 2723 was completely damaged in the said accident but the learned Tribunal has not paid any compensation on this

account.

Mr. C. S. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that despite the fact that he had examined the driver, who was

engaged by the appellant for the purpose of driving his tractor, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation with regard to the salary of

Rs. 3000/- being paid to the said driver. He has also vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation for the loss

caused to the motor cycle.

Mr. Amrit Sarin, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the appellant is a Government

employee and cannot be considered to be an agriculturist and also that the appellant has led no evidence to the loss caused to the motor cycle.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal reveals that the appellant has been awarded compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/ under the heads of

pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and for medical expenses only and no compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of income.

further perusal of the claim petition filed by the appellant before the learned Tribunal shows that the appellant had pleaded in his claim petition that

besides being a Government employee, he was also an agriculturist and driving the Tractor himself and now because of the disability arising due to

accident, he has employed a driver for driving his tractor and for that purpose he has been forced to pay of Rs. 5,000/-per month. In the testimony of

the appellant before the learned Tribunal also, it has been categorically stated that because of accident, he cannot do farming and also cannot drive the

tractor. The appellant has also examined PW Sohan Lal, who has stated that he has been engaged as a driver by the appellant and he has been plying

the tractor for the appellant since last one year and is getting Rs. 3000/- per month as salary. During cross-examination, he stated that he does not

issue any receipt of Rs. 3000/- to the appellant.

From the perusal of the award it is revealed that the learned Tribunal has returned a finding, neither in the claim petition nor the appellant in his

statement has proved that he suffered any loss of income. The learned Tribunal has ignored the testimony of the appellant as well as PW-Sohan Lal

and has not even considered the same without any justification though the PW Sohan Lat states that he has been driving the Tractor for the last one

year and has been getting the salary of Rs. 3000/- per month and this statement also cannot be believed as a gospel truth because the tractor is used

by agriculturist only for few months in a year and not for whole year, particularly when in the instant case it is the case of the appellant that now he

cannot do farming and cannot drive a tractor because of disability due to accident. The appellant had been using the tractor for his agriculture pursuits

only.

The objection raised by Mr. Sarin that the Government employee cannot be an agriculturist and cannot perform agriculture pursuits is difficult to

accept as the Government employee in his leisure time can undertake his agriculture pursuits with regard to his land. So this Court deems it

appropriate that a sum of Rs. 25000/- in total be granted to the appellant for engaging the services of a driver for driving his tractor in connection with

his agriculture pursuits. So far as the fact that no compensation has been granted on account of damage to the motor cycle is concerned, there is

absolutely no evidence with regard to that, as such, no compensation can be granted for the damage caused to the motor cycle.

In view of for all what has been discussed above, this appeal is partly allowed. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified and an Rs.

25,000/- is granted as lump sum to the appellant in addition to the award amount already granted by the learned Tribunal.

The aforesaid amount i.e. Rs. 25,000/- be deposited by the respondent No. 3 in the Registry within four weeks. On deposit, the same shall be

released in favour of the appellant after due verification by his engaged counsel.