^.F^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (DtVISIONBENCHT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. MISC. APPEAL tC} N0.482 OF 2006 Appellant: Claimant Rajeev Bhushan Agnihotri, S/o Shri Krishnanand Agnihotri, Aged about 48 years, R/o Qr. No.16, Jalashay Marg, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). Versus Respondents 1. Amool Samre, S/o Laxmikant Samre, R/o Civil Line Chandrapur, Dist. Chandrapur (Maharashtra). OWNER 2. National Insurance Company Ltd., Division No.10, Flat No.101-106, N-1, B.M.C. House Kanat Place, New Delhi 110001. 3. The Manager, Rayal Sundram Allayance Insurance Comp. Ltd. First Floor Yawla Complex in front of U.T.I. Bank near Bus Stend Pandry Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). Present:" Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents. (ORAL ORDER) (Passed on 20th December, 2006) The following oral order of the Court was passed by Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (henceforth 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 21-09-2006 pass^d in M.A.C.T. Case No.73 of 2006 awarded a compensation of Rs.4,17,500/- in favour of the appellant. 2) On 11-09-2004 appellant accompanied by his friend Satyajit Pathak was going to Nagpur in a car bearing registration No.CG-05A/8500. Appellant was license holder and he was driving the vehicte. When they reached near Khair Bana turning, the vehicle bearing registration No. MH-34K/2876 coming from opposite djrection, driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with the appellant's vehicte. Appetlant's vehicle turned turtte and jammed in a culveri:. Appellant received injuries on his right leg, knee, thigh and also on left hand in between elbow and shouider. He also received injuries on head and chest. He was taken to the Government Hospitel, Rajnandgaon, where after first aid he was referred to J.L.N. Hospital and Research Centre, BhiJai. 3) He was admitted in J.L.N. Hospital and Research Centre. Bhilai, for treatment and was discharged on 15-09-2004. Appellant for further treatment hired chartered ptane and went to Delhi and got treatment in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi. Thereafter he came back to Raipur and continued treatment in Khemka Hospital, Raipur. He calculated a total compensation of Rs.16,18,120/- on various heads and instituted his claim application under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehides Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act, 1988') against the owner of the vehicle responsible for the accident and its Insurer as well as the Insurer of the vehicle used by the appellant. Owner of the vehicle, which caused the acddent, respondent No.1, remained ex parie. Both the Insurance Companies contested the claim ofthe appellant. 4) Appellant in support of his claim adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Learned Tribunal considered the evidence and awarded the claim as below : S.No. Head 1. Medical Expenses 2. Loss of Income 3. 20% Permanent Disability in one leg and one hand 4. Travelling Expenses. 5. Physical and Mental Sufferings 6. Special Diet and Attendant Total: Amount 2,87,500=00 30,000=00 50.000=00 25,000=00 15,000=00 10,000=00 4,17,500=00 5) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal allowed Rs.2,69,170/- towards medical expenses, whereas Rs.2,87,500/- was proved. This is an incorrectstatement. From the award, it is evident that the Tribunal holding medical expenses to the tune of Rs.2,87,500/- proved, allowed the said amount. Tribunal disallowed Rs.13,650/-, that was claimed against Ex.P/52 on the ground that the item mentioned in Ex.P/52 has not been certified to be used by the patient. We have perused Ex.P/48 and Ex.P/52. Vide Ex.P/48 one set of Depuy, UK, ACE fTit.) Tibial Interlocking Nail System has been purchased and the hospital when applied that set in patient has endorsed a certificate in the bill whereas the same kit for Femoral Interlocking Nail System has been purchased, but was not certified to be applied in patient by the institution and there is no other evidence also to support that those items have been applied in patient, therefore, appellant was not entitled to claim the amount of Rs.13,650/- and learned Tribunal very correctly disallowed Rs.13,650/-, claimed against Ex.P/52. i 6) Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that for awarding loss of income the Tribunal did not consider his annual income Rs.1,00,000/-, and incorrectly allowed Rs.30,000/- holding the appellant's income as Rs.64,000/- per annum. Appellant himself has filed his income tax return i.e. Ex.P/95 and has shown his annual jncome as Rs.64,186/-. Tribunal on appellant's assessment accepted his income as Rs.64,000/- per annum and granted Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earnings, though it was not proved that the appellant was unable to work for any substantial period. From document (Ex.P/69) it appears that he was admitted in J.L.N. Hospital and Research Centre, Bhilai from 11-09-2004 to 15-09-2004. There is no document to esteblish how many days he remained in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi. Even otherwise, according to his own statement he was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital for 15 days. At the most loss of income for 20 days was admissible to the appellant, but loss of six months, earnings have been allowed by the Tribunal. 7) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that appellant hired a chartered aircraft and went to Delhi for treatment and incurred expenditure of Rs.4,70,000/- towards air travel, but learned Tribunal only allowed Rs.25,000/-. Appeliant was not referred for treatment by J.L.N. Hospital and Research Centre. Bhilai. He himself got dischargedand went to Delhi. MedJcal Officer of J.L.N. Hospjtal and Research Centre, Bhilai was not examined to establish that there was emergency to shift the patient to Delhi or even to say that patient was in need of advance treatment at other centre. Regular flight/train sen/ices are available for Delhi, but leaving aside both the services appellant chose to hire a chartered aircraft to meet luxury and luxurious claims are not part and partial of accident award. Even though learned Tribunal showing leniency allowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards air travel. 8) Leamed counset for the appellant further contended that the Tribunal did not allow compensation for loss of future earning. Learned Tribunal considered al( the aspects of the case and hotd that there is no possibility of future loss of income, therefore, did not allow any additional sum towards loss of future income. We are unabte to disagree with the finding of the Tribunal, who after due consideration has disallowed future joss of income looking to nature of the work. The injuries caused to the appellant are not sufficient to impair functionat competency of the appellant, even otherwise learned Tribunal not only has allowed Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income that is for six months earning, but further allowed Rs.15,000/- towards his disabiljty. 9) Towards mental & physical suffering, attendant and special diet totel amount allowed by tihe Tribunal is Rs.25,000/-, that cannot be said to be unjust or jnsufficient. 10) In the instant case, neither Medical Officer of J.L.N. Hospital and Research Centre, Bhilai, who examined and treated the appellant, nor any one from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi, who treated the appetlant has been examined. Dr. A.A. Saifi (AW-1), who was adduced by the appellant, had examined the appellant on 17-08-2005 i.e. after lapse of 0 (nine) months for issuing a disabiljty certificate. He assessed 20% disabJlity in appellant's right leg and left shoulder. Neither there is any medical evidence to show that after retum from Delhi appellant was under medical supen/ision nor there was any evidence to establish the same. His own Gowri evidence shows that after taking disability certificate i.e. Ex.P/1; he was not advised by Medical Officer to take any medicines. 11) Though medical evidence was lacking yet learned Tribunal, even on assumption and presumption allowed substential compensation to the appellant. Compensation awarded to the appellant does not suffer from any IIJegality or perversity. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed summarily and is accordingly dismissed in limine. No costs.c Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge