: 1 : 1529-11-fa=.sxw UJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1529 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3163 OF 2011. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant v/s. Dhananji Rama Mhatre & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Devendra S. Joshi for the appellant Mr. A.M. Gokhale i/b Mr. M.B. Kotak for respondent no.1 ......... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J DATE : 14th DECEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. By consent, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties are heard. The appeal is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 31st January, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Member, MACT, Thane in MACP No.652 of 2002 awarding a sum of Rs.4,74,438/- as compensation etc. in favour of the respondent no.1 (claimant). The case was of injury claim filed by the respondent no.1. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that he sustained injuries due to negligent driving of the driver of the Car owned by the respondent no.2. The accident : 2 : 1529-11-fa=.sxw took place on 4th June, 2002 at about 1.30 p.m. on a public road. The appellant Insurance Company opposed the claim mainly on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not made party. The learned Additional Member held in view of certain judgments of the Supreme Court that the driver of the vehicle was not necessary party to such litigation. The learned Member then went on to decide the case on merits. He held that in view of there being no specific evidence in respect of the income of the respondent no.1, he would hold that the income of the respondent no.1 was equivalent to that of an unskilled labour. Income of unskilled labour is held by Supreme Court as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The learned Member then placed reliance on Dr. Kelsikar’s deposition certifying that the respondent no.1 had suffered 60% permanent disability. The learned Member then utilized multiplier of 13 for calculating the total loss of income at Rs.2,80,800/-. The learned Member then awarded compensation under the heads of special diets conveyance, medical expenses, loss of enjoyment and amenities of life and compensation for future medical treatment. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants first asserted that the learned Member erred in holding that the 60% permanent physical disablement of the respondent no.1 would result into 60% loss of income. He pointed out that the respondent no.1 is not entirely dependent on his physical : 3 : 1529-11-fa=.sxw prowess for earning his livelihood. He carried on business of construction along with other occupation as farmer. He argued for doing on business as property developer, one does not need his full physical prowess. I am not inclined to accept this arguments. The reason is, once a Court holds that income of a person was as low as that of an unskilled labour, there would be no scope for discussing as to whether he depends on his physical prowess or otherwise. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant then asserted that the learned Member could not have awarded Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of enjoyment and amenities of life. He tried to assert, once the Court allows compensation on account of loss of income, separate compensation under the head of loss of enjoyment and amenities of life cannot be granted. In support, he placed reliance on judgment of Supreme Court on this point in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343. He particularly quoted para 15 of the judgment, which reads as under. “15. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or : 4 : 1529-11-fa=.sxw nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may.” 4. Indeed in this case, the Court has awarded compensation for loss of future earning as 60% and so a token or nominal amount could be awarded to the respondent no.1 under the head of loss of amenities or loss and expectation of life etc. The amount granted by the learned member to the respondent no.1 on this head is Rs.25,000/- or nominal sum. Having regard to the facts of the case and the amounts of compensation under other heads, I accept the submission of respondent no.1’s Counsel that this sum in this case at least should be accepted as token amount. Appeal fails. Appeal is dismissed. 5. In view of this, Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)