1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 08.10.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Baroda in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 641 of 1986 in so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,46,100/- as compensation with interest at 15% per annum.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 26.10.1985 while the appellant was traveling in a luxury bus bearing registration no. GRQ 8401 being driven by the original opponent no. 4 in a rash and negligent manner dashed with the rear portion of a truck dumper bearing registration no. GTK 5687 also driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries on various parts of the body and his right hand was cut off on the spot. The appellant therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr.
Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record and thereby erred in awarding adequate amount under various heads. He submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the appellant and the disability. He submitted that the future loss of income of Rs. 84000/- is on lower side and that the Tribunal ought to have considered Rs. 5000/- as the income considering batch-mates of the appellant drawing the same salary.
4.1 Mr.
Thakkar submitted that considering the number of days of hospitalization and the months of bed rest, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 25000/- towards pain, shock and suffering which is on lower side. He submitted that even the amount awarded under the head of transportation is on lower side. Mr. Thakkar has also claimed more amount under the head of attendant charges considering the number of days the parents of the appellant looked after the appellant.
4.2 Mr.
Thakkar further submitted that the Tribunal though has calculated Rs. 45000/- towards expenses for artificial limb has granted only Rs. 30000/-. In support of his submissions, Mr. Thakkar has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Batham vs. Munnalal Parihar and Others reported in 2011(10) SCC 665 wherein the Apex Court enhanced the claim amount and awarded more than the amount claimed for. Reliance has also been placed on another decision of this Court in the case of Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others reported in 2003(1) GLH 225 wherein it is observed that in a case where injury to a victim requires periodical medical expenses, fresh award cannot be passed or previous award cannot be reviewed when the medical expenses are incurred after finalisation of the compensation proceedings and hence only alternative is that at the time of passing of final award, Tribunal/court should consider each eventuality and fix compensation accordingly. No one can suggest that it is improper to take into account expenditure genuinely and reasonably required to be incurred can be determined only on the basis of fair guesswork after taking into account increase in the cost of medical treatment.
5. Mr.
G.C. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent insurance company strongly supported the award passed by the Tribunal. He submitted that considering the year of accident which is 1985, the income tax limit for the relevant year was Rs. 15000/- per annum and therefore the income of Rs. 12000/- assessed by the Tribunal for an unemployed person is justified. He contended that considering the evidence on record as regards hospitalization and medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded appropriate amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering, transportation and attendant charges.
5.1 Mr.
Majmudar has further submitted that the Tribunal in fact has awarded higher amount under the head of future loss of income as the multiplier ought to have been assessed as 18 instead of 20. He submitted that even the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. Mr. Majmudar submitted that considering the income from the interest awarded, the appellant can in fact meet his limb expenses and the interest income on the amount of limb expenses awarded by the Tribunal shall only be more than the expenses incurred by him. The interest on Rs. 30000/- shall fetch Rs. 2400/- per annum and Rs. 7200/- for three years.
6. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the view that considering the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant sustained injuries as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the original opponents no. 1 & 4. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 12000/- per annum. The accident is of the year 1985 during which the income tax limit was Rs. 15000/- per annum. Therefore, under the said circumstances, the income of Rs. 12000/- assessed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on lower side. In fact the parity of batchmates as claimed by the appellant cannot be accepted as the appellant had in fact cleared B.SC after the accident more particularly in the year 1989 which is also clear from his cross examination. Therefore, the income assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper.
6.1 The appellant was hospitalized for almost 41 days and he was on bed rest for almost 14 months. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25000/- towards pain shock and suffering which in view of this Court is just and proper. The amount awarded under the head of transportation is not required to be enhanced as the same is awarded without any documentary evidence on record. The attendant charges as claimed by the appellant are towards the care taken by the parents which is not justified as parents are bound to take care of children and no amount whatsoever can balance or justify the care, love and affection.
6.2 As far as the replacement of limb expenses is concerned, the income from interest on the amount of limb expenses awarded by the Tribunal shall cover the same. In the case of Nagappa (supra), the amount awarded under the head of purchase of artificial leg was Rs. 18000/- whereas in the present case the amount is Rs. 30000/- which is appropriate on the facts of the present case. The case of the appellant is that he travelled to Jaipur and abroad etc for limb treatment. However, no cogent evidence in that regard was placed on record. In the case of Sanjay Batham (supra), the claimant therein was paralysed whereas in the present case, the appellant has continued his routine and also went on to study further. This court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and therefore does not see any reason for causing interference. Nothing is produced before this Court to take a contrary view. The Tribunal has finally quantified the amount of compensation at Rs. 1,46,100/-.
7. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top