LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-190

ANTHONY FERNANDES Vs. CHANDRAKANT NAIK

Decided On August 04, 2016
ANTHONY FERNANDES Appellant
V/S
Chandrakant Naik Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri V.G.Pai Dukle, learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant who submitted that the appeal was only for the enhancement of the claim from that awarded by the learned Tribunal, there being no dispute on the aspect of the rash and negligent driving at the instance of the respondent no.1. He had adverted to the records and submitted that the findings of the learned Tribunal particularly on the aspect of awarding the compensation to the appellant was flawed and, therefore, he should be granted the enhanced compensation appropriately. He relied in Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors.Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 4 AllMR 429 and submitted that he was entitled to 30% extra compensation towards the future loss.

(2.) Shri Mashelkar, learned Advocate for the respondent no.1 submitted that he was supporting the judgment of the learned Tribunal which has assessed the material on the record properly and granted a reasonable compensation to the appellant. The respondent no.1 had to be therefore absolved from any pecuniary liability towards the appellant. Shri A.S.Kakodkar, learned Advocate for the respondents no.3 also referred to the evidence on record and submitted that the testimony of the witnesses relied upon by the appellant did not inspire confidence and were accordingly not considered by the learned Tribunal while disallowing the claim towards the attendant charges. The learned Tribunal had also looked into the Certificate issued by the Doctor vis-a-vis the evidence of another Surgeon and found that the testimony of the Surgeon did not inspire confidence. There was no need for any enhanced compensation and hence the appeal had to be dismissed.

(3.) The present appeal is restricted to the quantum of the compensation to be awarded in the appellant's favour on various heads including that towards the loss of income and that towards the permanent disability. The appellant had examined himself and he had clearly set out his age and employment as a Welder running a Workshop and was earning a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-. In the course of the accident he had suffered the injuries which were grievous in nature leading to the permanent disability. He had suffered the injuries to his eye and the fracture injuries so much so that his left eye remained open even while sleeping and he was unable to do any work. He had suffered the permanent disability and was unable to work due to the injuries suffered by him entitling him to the compensation claimed in the petition. He had produced the documents in support of his case including the photographs showing the injuries suffered by him. His testimony had borne out that though he had learnt up to 9th standard, he had completed two years practical job experience in the field of fabrication and that he was running a workshop with five workers and having a net profit of Rs. 1,00,000/- approximately which was apparent from the Income Tax Returns filed by him.