VINOD KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. VED MITRA VOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an award made by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, jabalpur. The appellant Vinod Kumar Shrivastava was knocked down by a motor truck on 10th March, 1963 and received bodily injuries. The truck at the relevant time was owned by the first respondent, was driven by his driver the second respondent and was insured with the third respondent. The appellant claimed before the Tribunal a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation against the respondents in respect of bodily injuries suffered by him in the accident. By the award under appeal the claim has been allowed to the extent of Rs. 5,000/ -. The appellant has come up to this Court for enhancement of the award.

(2.) THE appellant at the time of the accident was seventeen years of age and was a student. He was knocked down from behind while going on foot and his left leg came under the wheels of the motor truck resulting in a compound fracture of lower one-third Tibia and Fibula bones. The leg was immobilised from toe to thigh and was kept in plaster for nearly three months. The appellant was examined by dr. Koshal, Head of the Department of Surgery, Medical College Jabalpur, on 28th november, 1966. Dr. Koshal found that the fracture had healed well and there was no mal-union. But he also found that there was wasting of the muscle of the lower third of the left leg on the medial side, wasting, of the left quadriceps and limitation of active flexion of the left knee and left foot. According to Dr. Koshal, the appellant will have partial disability of the use of the left ankle joint and the left lower limb in that he will not be able to take part in heavy outdoor games and heavy physical exercises. Dr. Koshal has further stated that the appellant is likely to develop early osteoarthritis changes in the ankle joint which may become painful in middle age and later life. The appellant even after the accident continued to be a member of the National Cadet Corps which goes to show that he is not handicapped in walking or in taking part in normal drill exercises. His career though interrupted for some time has not been affected and he has been able to prosecute his normal studies. It is pointed out to us from the statement of the appellant that he cannot take part in outdoor games and cannot ride a bicycle. This part of his statement appears to us to be an exaggeration. May be that he cannot play the games or ride a bicycle as well as he did before, but it is not believable from the nature of the injuries and the statement of Dr. Koshal that he cannot at all play the outdoor games or cannot ride a bicycle. In our opinion, the evidence of Dr. Koshal does not show that the permanent disability resulting from the injuries is of any appreciable nature.

(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal in awarding Rs. 5,000/- as damages has not taken into account the following heads of damages: (i) Loss of expectation of life; (ii) Loss of amenity; and (iii)Future pain and suffering,