ASHOK KUMAR BALEKAR Vs. RISHI KUMAR RAJPOOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 23rd March, 1996 passed in Claim Case f No. 25 of 1994 by the VI Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur.

(2.) The facts briefly are that on 4th April, 1992 in the evening around 7 p.m. Tikamchand was driving a Luna and the appellant was sitting behind him. A jeep bearing Registration No. M.B.T. 8304 came from front side and dashed adjacent the Luna. As a result of the said accident, the appellant was thrown away about 8-10 feet and as a consequence, he received a fracture in his left leg. He was hospitalized in O.K. Hospital for a period of one month. He filed the aforesaid claim case before the Tribunal claiming a compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,65,000. The Tribunal however, worked out a sum or Rs. 31,200 as loss of income and sum of Rs. 5,000 towards medical expenses and finally awarded a sum of Rs. 36.000 along with interest @ 12% per annum calculated from the date of application i.e. 9th March, 1993 till realisation. Since the jeep was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd./respondent No. 3, the compensation amount so awarded was to be paid by respondent No. 3. Aggrieved by the. said award dated 23rd March, 1996 the claimant has filed this appeal.

(3.) Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has come to the finding on the basis of evidence before him that the appellant was selling ice-cream and on account of the injuries suffered by him in his left leg, he would earn an income of Rs. 1,000 of Rs. 1,200 p.m. and accordingly calculated the loss of income by adopting the multiplier of 13 and worked out the total loss of income of the appellant as Rs. 31,200 (Rs. 200 x 121 x 13). He vehemently argued that the finding of the Tribunal is very clear that the appellant would suffer a loss of income of Rs. 10 every day in his business on account of injuries in his leg and if that be so the total loss of income would work out at Rs. 300 instead of Rs. 200 per month. He further submitted that the appellant was aged about 34 years at the time of accident and yet the Tribunal has determined his age as 36 years on the basis of medical report and some medical prescriptions which have been produced before the Tribunal but it would be clear from the deposition of appellant himself which was given about 2 years after the accident that he was 36 years when he gave the deposition before the Tribunal. He vehemently argued that there is no reason whatsoever to take the age of the appellant as 36 years when his actual age was 34 years at time of accident. Mr. Verma further submitted that besides the loss of income and medical expenses the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards pain and suffering although the appellant was hospitalized for a period of one month and thereafter had to visit the hospital every 15 days as would be clear from the deposition of the appellant before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the certificate Ext. P-01 and the evidence of Doctor (AW 2) are clear that the left leg of the appellant had become stiff at the knee on account of which the appellant was limping and yet no compensation has been awarded for loss of amenity suffered by the appellant. Mr. Verma cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. : [1995]1SCR75 , wherein the Supreme Court awarded an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 towards pain and suffering and Rs. 1,50,000 towards loss of amenities of life of the claimant. He also relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh v. Ishwar and Ors. : AIR1999SC3448 , wherein the Supreme Court enhanced the award of Rs. 50,000 to a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000 on the head of pain, shock and suffering with 12% interest on the additional amount.