DANZIL OSCAR S DIAS Vs. JOSE J COUTINHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, the appellant claims enhancement in the compensation awarded to him in a Motor accident Claim Petition No. 109/1993.

(2.) ON October 17, 1992, the appellant was travelling on a motor cycle bearing registration No. GA-02-5867 from vasco-da-Gama to Margao via Cortalim. While the motor cycle was ascending the slope, a mini bus bearing registration No. GDA 2458 came in the opposite direction at a very fast speed, came to the right hand side of the road and gave a dash to the appellant. The appellant was overthrown along with the pillion rider, off his motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries including fracture of three ribs and multiple fractures of upper right tibia fibula (shin-bone ). The appellant had to undergo bone grafting surgery on his right leg for upper tibia fibula by removing the bone from his pelvic region. The appellant suffered permanent disability of the right knee and lost his job. The appellant, therefore, claimed compensation of rs. 12,56,904. 19 under different heads. The mini bus owned by respondent No. 2 and was being driven by respondent No. 1 at the relevant time and was insured with respondent No. 3 insurance Company. Despite service, respondents No. 1 and 2 remained absent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and they are also absent in this Court. The Motor Accident claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') has come to the conclusion that the mini bus was being driven by the respondent No. 1 in a fast and negligent manner. The Tribunal has also noted that the brake marks on the road showed that the mini bus first went to the left, then to the right side of the road and dashed against the appellant's motor cycle. The mini bus was driven at so high a speed that ultimately it fell on its left side. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,54,000/- to the appellant for loss of salary during the period of hospitalisation, reimbursement of medical expenses and the expenses of the attendants and masseur and compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss of salary of claimant's wife for short period during which she was required to attend to the appellant during his illness in the hospital. The Tribunal did not allow any claim for future loss of income. No cross appeal nor cross objections have been filed by the respondents challenging the findings of the tribunal on negligence or the amount of compensation awarded.

(3.) IN the present appeal, the appellant claims compensation for loss of his future earnings. At the time of the accident, the appellant was 51 year's of age and was employed in a small private concern, on a monthly salary of Rs. 4800/ -. The job of the appellant involved travelling and even at the time of the accident, the appellant was travelling on his motor cycle pursuant to his employment and had gone to Salgaonkar Workshop at cortalim. On account of the injuries suffered in the accident, the appellant could not go to work for a period of 11 months. Thereafter, his previous employer Purohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. , engaged him again, but on retainership basis, instead of regular employment. He worked for some time, but due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident he was unable to undertake physical strain and unable to continue with the work. Therefore, by a letter dated January 7, 1995, the appellant tendered his resignation. It is not clear whether the resignation was voluntary or whether the appellant was required to give his resignation at the behest of the employer or as the appellant was unable to cope up with the work. The fact, however, remains that the appellant could not continue with the work on account of the injuries suffered due to the accident. The fact of appellant resigning on account of inability to undertake physical strain of employment was not chullenged before the Tribunal.