ASHOK SHANTARAM MAHAMUNI Vs. ARJUN BUDHO GAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 22/12/2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji awarding compensation of Rs.3,72,460/- to the appellant.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents no.1 & 2. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in accident which occurred on 3/05/2013 at Usgao where respondent's Maruti Zen vehicle bearing no.GA-02-S-0098 gave a dash to the appellant's Kinetic Scooter no.GA-01-P-2944. The appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.12 lacs. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to compensation quantified at Rs.54,321/- towards medical expenses, Rs.27,750/- towards the travelling expenses, Rs.80,385/- towards the salary for the period of absence and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. The appellant had suffered disability to the extent of 47.5%. A sum of Rs.2 lacs was awarded as compensation towards this permanent disability of 47.5%. The Tribunal thus awarded in all a sum of Rs.3,72,460/- with interest.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. As far as pain and suffering is concerned, the compensation awarded has obviously to be notional and there cannot be a measure of pain and suffering. The amount of Rs.10,000/- cannot be said to be too small considering the injuries sustained by the appellant and the fact that the appellant was taking treatment for about 15 months. For disability of 47.5% suffered by the appellant adequate compensation of Rs.2 lacs has been awarded. There was no question of applying any multiplier for awarding compensation for any future loss of earning since the appellant had not shown that he had been removed from service as a result of the injury sustained by him or disability incurred by him. The learned Counsel for the appellant, on instructions, states that the appellant is still serving. He however submits that there was a chance of promotion which the appellant lost on account of mishap. Now, these are uncertainties of life. There is no guarantee that, had the appellant not met with the mishap he would have certainly been promoted. Since the appellant is continuing in his employment, which he had before the mishap, there is no question of his being entitled to any compensation towards future loss of earnings. The Tribunal was right in refusing compensation on this ground.