UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. G RAJESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST respondent in this appeal, aged 18 years statedly an agriculturist, was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter on 05. 02. 1996. Lorry bearing No. AAT 6887 dashed against the scooter. First respondent received serious injuries. He was admitted at Government Hospital, Nizamabad, for treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and again referred to Nizams institute of Medical Sciences. Alleging that he incurred Rs. 80,000/- for treatment, he filed O. P. No. 385 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, claiming a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. O. P was opposed by the insurer denying the negligence on the part of the driver and on quantum of compensation.

(2.) IN view of the dispute, learned Tribunal framed two issues and enquiry was conducted. First respondent examined himself as P. W. 1. Doctor who treated him was examined as P. W. 2. Exs. A1 to A7 were marked besides Exs. C1 and C2. Ex. A4 is the bunch of 15 medical bills. Ex. A6 is insurance policy, and Ex. C1 is the disability certificate issued by P. W. 2 showing that first respondent suffered 50% disability. Considering the evidence on record learned Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Learned Tribunal then fixed age of the injured as 25 years and determined income as Rs. 3,000/- per month. A total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was awarded though it was determined as Rs. 2,08,600/ -.

(3.) IN this appeal learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal was in error in determining the compensation that can be awarded to first respondent for the injuries sustained by him. He submits that when an agriculturist is a victim of the accident, the loss of income has to be calculated only based on supervision charges and he suggests that for the injuries sustained by the first respondent and also the disability suffered by him, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken Rs. 1000/- as loss of supervision charges. He placed reliance on state of Haryana v Jasbir Kaur.