1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Tribunal (Aux), Vadodara, on 15.06.2002 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1632 of 1997, whereby the Tribunal awarded in all 52,384/- by way of compensation to the appellant-claimant with running interest at the rate of 9% per-annum from the date of filing of said claim petition till the realization and directed respondents herein to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation jointly and/or severally.
2. The appellant felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation is very inadequate and less, and therefore, preferred the instant appeal claiming enhancement of the amount of compensation at least to the extent of Rs.65,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the appellant was original claimant and the respondents were original opponents in the claim petition. Therefore, the parties to this appeal shall be herein after referred to in their original status before the Tribunal in Claim Petition.
3. As per the case of the claimant, on 28.06.1997, at about 08.00 a.m., while she was passing on road, near Karelibaugh, Vadodara, and she was walking almost on the footpath, at that time, Maruti Car bearing Registration No.GJ-6-AA-2320 driven by the opponent no.1 and owned by the opponent no.2 and insured with the opponent no.3-Insurance Company came from behind and dashed with the claimant and she was knocked down and she sustained serious bodily injuries on her right hand and on other parts of her body. It was the case of the claimant that because of such injuries, she had to remain as indoor patient in S.S.G. Hospital, Vadodara, for 15 days. It is further her case that even after the discharge, for six months, she could not attend her work. It is further her case that even after the discharge for six month, she could not attend her work. It is further her case that the injury resulted into permanent disability affecting her earning capacity. According to the applicant, at the time of accident, she was serving as Sweeper in the hospital itself and was earning R.5,000/- per month by way of salary. The claimant, therefore, filed above claim petition to recover Rs.2 Lacs by way of compensation. As state above, the Tribunal awarded Rs.52,384/- by way of compensation.
4. Mr.Pandya, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the amount awarded by way of compensation is very less. He submitted that considering the medical evidence on record, the claimant received serious bodily injuries and despite that only Rs.22,500/- are awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain, shock and suffering. It is further submitted that despite the fact that medical evidence revealed that disability of the body as a whole sustained by the claimant was 20%, while calculating the compensation amount under the head of future loss of income, the Tribunal took into consideration the disability only at 5%. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be allowed.
5. Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 opposed this appeal and submitted that as a matter of fact, the claimant was not entitled to recover any amount under the head of future economical loss for the simple reason that the claimant herself in her evidence categorically stated that even after the accident, her service as a Sweeper in the hospital continued and she further admitted that after the accident, her pay has been increased.
6. Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 further submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on lower side.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the both the sides and I have also taken into consideration the record and proceedings. As seen above, the Tribunal awarded Rs.52,384/- by way of compensation to the claimant. As submitted by Mr.Pandya, learned advocate for the appellant, the Tribunal only considered the disability to the extent of 5% while awarding compensation under the head of loss to the future income. It is further submitted that there is no doubt that as per the pay-slip, at the time of accident, the monthly salary of the claimant was Rs.1,831/-. Mr.Pandya, learned advocate for the appellant, submitted that even while calculating the compensation under the head of future loss of income, the Tribunal did not take into consideration the future prospective income. Now, in this connection, considering the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal and more particularly, the discussion made by the Tribunal in Para-13, in the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal took into consideration the evidence adduced by the claimant in the form of pay-slip and observed that at the time of accident, the claimant was earning by way of salary Rs.1,831/- per month. The Tribunal also took into consideration the medical evidence on record regarding the disability and considered the disability to the extent of 5% affecting earning capacity of the claimant. Further, it is pertinent to note that the Tribunal clearly observed that the claimant admitted in her cross-examination that even at the time when she stepped into the witness box, her service as Sweeper continued and that after the accident, her pay has been increased.
8. In above view of the matter, it can safely be said that even after the accident, the service of the claimant with the hospital not only continued but she was gradually earning more than she was earning at the time of the accident. To put it differently, it can safely be said that the medical disability in fact did not cause any adverse effect upon her earning capacity. In above view of the matter, however, Tribunal awarded Rs.52,384/- by way of compensation under head of future economic loss and learned advocate Mr.Shah for the respondent no.3 rightly submitted that as a matter fact, the claimant was not at all entitled to recover any amount under this head. Under such circumstances, at least, no increase in said amount is required.
9. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.22,500/- by way of pain, shock and suffering. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant-claimant that the said amount deserves increase.
10. In connection with this submissions, I have taken into consideration the over all medical evidence regarding the nature of injury sustained by the claimant as well as her evidence before the Tribunal and the period of hospitalization. The Tribunal, over and above awarding Rs.22,500/- toward pain, shock and suffering, awarded Rs.6,220/- towards transportation, special diet and other miscellaneous expenses. considering the over all facts and circumstances and in light of above discussion, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs.22,500/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain, shock and suffering is inadequate or less.
11. Seen in above context, this Court does not find any merits in the appeal and the appeal, therefore, deserves dismissal.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) Girish