SADIKHUSAIN MAHAMADMIYA SAIYED Vs. SUHAS MOHAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) was pressed only for the purpose of enhancement of compensation under the head of "future loss of income". There is no dispute about the facts that the appellant was a minor when his leg came to be crushed in a motor vehicle accident on 23.8.1989 and he had to undergo prolonged treatment, hospitalization and surgical operations. The Claims Tribunal was pleased to award Rs.25,000/ - towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs.3,200/ - for attendant charges, Rs.5,000/ - for medicines, medical treatment and nutritious food and Rs.1,000/ - towards conveyance charges. The Tribunal has, however, in the impugned award, awarded only Rs.9,072/ - towards future loss of income due to disability on the basis that notional income of the appellant was considered at the rate of Rs.350/ - per month and, considering the permanent partial disability of 12% of the body as a whole, applying multiplier of 18, total amount of Rs.9,072/ - was awarded as future loss of income.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the parties had, after reference to the disability certificate showing permanent disability of 25% for right lower limb, submitted a joint pursis, Ex.140, for the purpose of computation of compensation considering the disability to be 12% for the body as a whole. The Tribunal has then referred to income of the father of the applicant who was doing manual agricultural labour work and earning Rs.25/ - to Rs.30/ - per day as labour charges, and taken notional income of the appellant at Rs.350/ - per month. It was rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was studying in school at that time and he could not have been presumed to be preparing for agricultural labour work for wages even lower than what his poor father was earning. He also submitted that even bare minimum wages for unskilled labour would have been more than Rs.40/ - per day and would have kept on enhancing under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

(3.) AS against that, learned counsel Ms.Anusree Kapadia submitted that the Tribunal had taken into account the overall circumstances of the case and the background of the claim application which was originally filed only for compensation of Rs.9,999/ -, which figure was subsequently amended and increased to Rs.80,000/ -