The appellant was the claimant before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara in MACP No.9 of 1994. He had claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the accidental injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident, that occurred on 28/11/1993 on the Bodeli-Dabhoi Highway at about 12:00 noon, near Charola bus-stand sign board, when he knocked down by Tempo bearing No.GJ-6T-6357 while the appellant was proceeding on his vehicle. As a result of the accidental injuries, the appellant's left leg was required to be amputated right from its root. The age of the appellant at the relevant time was ten years. The medical evidence indicated that there was no possibility of an artificial limb being adopted by the appellant. The injuries were of a nature that they were likely to affect the sexual life of the appellant. 2. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,88,500/- which includes Rs.30,000/- as compensation under head of pain, shock and suffering. While computing future loss of income, the Tribunal took into consideration the disability of the appellant @ 50% in respect of body as a whole. The petitioner - appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal dated 21/08/2004 mainly on the count that the compensation awarded under head of pain, shock and suffering is not adequate and; secondly on the ground that the Tribunal erred in assessing 50% disability while computing compensation under head of future loss of income.
3. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant, Mr.Hakim and learned Advocate for respondent No.3.
4. Learned Advocate Mr.Hakim has taken this Court through the judgment of the Tribunal, as well as, the record and proceedings. The evidence of Doctor Exh.24 would indicate that the Doctor had examined the appellants for the purpose of assessment of disability. The Doctor has opined that the appellant would not be able to use artificial limb and his sexual life is likely to be affected. These two aspects have not been challenged by the other side during cross-examination.
5. It is required to be noted that the appellant was aged ten years and was doing nothing; his father is a labourer. Necessary, inference, therefore would be that the appellant could not educate himself till he reached the age of ten and would, therefore have remained illiterate even for the rest of his life and would have engaged himself in labour work. The medical evidence that the disability of the appellant is 100% in respect of the limb, is taken by the Tribunal at 50% in respect of body as a whole, but the Tribunal has overlooked the fact that the appellant, an illiterate man would have been required to engage in labour work only and, therefore, the functional disability would be equivalent to the disability of the limb. No suggestion is put either to the claimant or to the Doctor that the appellant would be engaged in any other work where disability may not come in his way.
6. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the Tribunal erred in assessing the disability of the appellant at 50% while computing compensation under head of future loss of income. The Tribunal has assessed the prospective income of the appellant at Rs.1,500/- per month and has adopted a multiplier of 16 and thus awarded an amount of Rs.1,44,000/- under the head of future loss of income. Now, if the above aspects are considered, the claimant would be entitled to a compensation under this head at the rate of 100% which would mean Rs.500/- x 12 x 16 equivalent to Rs.2,88,000/-, as against Rs.1,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant, therefore, would be entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,44,000/- as compensation under this head with proportionate costs and interest.
7. The second aspect that is pressed by the appellant in the appeal is that the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. The appellant was aged 10 at the time of accident. He belongs to a labour class strata of society where physical fitness is a fundamental requirement; he will be required to lead his life on crutches, as he will not be able to adopt artificial limb as per medical evidence; his sexual life is also likely to be affected as opined by the Doctor and not disputed by the other side; he will suffer for rest of his life due to disability in any work with which he would engage himself in. In this set of circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation under head of pain, shock and suffering is not adequate. In the opinion of this Court, an amount of Rs.1.00 Lac, if awarded, under the head of pain, shock and suffering would meet the ends of justice. The claimant, therefore, would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.70,000/- as compensation under this head with proportionate costs and interest.
8. The appeal, thus, partly allowed. The appellant is held entitled to additional compensation of Rs.1,44,000/- under the head of future loss of income and additional amount of Rs.70,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering as compensation, totalling to Rs.2,14,000/-, with proportionate costs and interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Award accordingly. No costs.
(A L DAVE, J.) sompura