Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

ii) Being aggrieved by the quantum, in respect of injury claim, the fa456.98 original claimant has preferred this first appeal No. 456 of 1998.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant was performing Kirtan in various villages prior to the accident and was getting Rs.1000/1500 per Kirtan. The claimant was renowned Kirtankar and secured honour of Hari Bakta Parayan issued by the Government. The claimant used to have 10/15 Kirtans in a month and he was earning substantial sum by performing Kirtans. Learned counsel submits that the claimant is also having agricultural land and prior to the accident he was cultivating the same. The Tribunal has not considered his income from performing of Kirtans well as from agricultural source. The medical certificate Exh.40 is not considered by the Tribunal in its proper perspectives. Learned counsel submits that even though percentage of disablement is not mentioned in said certificate Exh.40, considering the nature of disablement and since claimant was performing Kirtan by visiting various villages and he used to perform it in standing position for 2/3 hours in a day, the Tribunal should have considered the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 50%.

In order to substantiate his submissions, learned counsel place reliance on the judgment in the case of Ponnumany @ Krishnan and Anr. vs. V.A. Mohanan and others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2014.

6. I have also heard learned counsel appearing for the M.S.R.T.C.

7. The claimant has examined himself on oath and deposed fa456.98 before the Tribunal that he was performing Kirtan in various villages in the State of Maharashtra prior to the accident. He was getting Rs.1000/- to 1200/- per Kirtan in the form of cash and/or kind. He has also secured the honour of "Hari Bhakta Parayan". So far as agricultural income is concerned, he is having 23 acres of land at Paithan, 8 acres of land at village Tambha Rajuri, Taluka Patoda, District Beed. Furthermore, he also own and possess 5 acres of land at Rakshashbhuvan in Patoda Taluka in Beed district.

Lastly it is concluded that despite prompt and correct treatment, the claimant has to continue with this disability for the remaining period of his life.

9. The claimant has deposed that he was known as Hari Bhakta Parayan. There is no cross examination on this point. He has further deposed that he had to stand 2 to 2.5 hours for one Kirtan i.e. in fa456.98 standing position. He was required to visit various villages in the State of Maharashtra. Thus, considering the nature of permanent disablement, the claimant would not be in a position to visit villages so frequently and giving same performance as it was prior to the accident. Thus, considering the same and also considering the loss in the agricultural income by way of personal supervision for cultivating the lands, in my considered opinion, there is loss of income to the extent of Rs.1500/- p.m. which corresponds to Rs.18,000/- per year. It is not disputed that the claimant was 60 years old at the time of accident. Thus, considering his age, 9 would be the appropriate multiplier in this case. In view of this, the loss of future income comes to Rs.1,62,000/-. In view of details given in the medical certificate and considering the profession of the claimant and the fact of agricultural lands possessed by him situated at difference places, the disablement as described in the certificate at Exh.40, in my opinion, affected his earning capacity to the extent of 50%. In view of this, the claimant is thus entitled to Rs.81,000/-. So far as the future loss of earning is concerned, learned Member has awarded compensation for medical expenses as well as diet and also for pains and sufferings. I do not find any fault in it.