1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2005 Shri Ramkrishna Son of Nagaiah Rakop 45 years of age, married, Bank employee, C/o Bank of India, Collem Branch, Sanguem Goa Residing at C/o Biju Niwas, Ground Floor Bebke Gal, Curchorem Goa. ... Appellant versus 1. Raghunath Fatu Mardolkar major, resident of Pimpalmol, Collem, Sanguem Goa (H.No. Not known) Driver. 2. Shamba Kanta Gaonkar major, resident of Ward 2, Valpoi, Sattari Goa (H. No. not known) Owner. 3. National Insurance Company Ltd. 1st floor, Gaunekar Building, Ponda Goa Insurer. ... Respondents Shri S. S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri E. Afonso, Advocate for Respondent No.3. 2 CORAM : F. M. REIS, J. DATE : 25TH MARCH, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 16-7-2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao in Claim Petition No.129 of 2000. 2. The appellant filed the Claim Petition on the ground that on 14-5-1998 he along with others were returning from Collem to Mollem by a hired trax jeep bearing No.GA-01/U-1483 owned by the respondent No.2 and driven by the respondent No.1, and on the way at about 11.30 p.m. due to the most rash and negligent driving, the respondent No.1 lost control of the vehicle which went off the road and violently dashed against a tree due to which all the occupants including the appellant sustained serious injuries. According to the appellant, due to the accident, he sustained compound fracture of the right leg and dislocation to his left hip. The appellant was working for Bank of India, Collem and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.6,200/-. According to the appellant, he was unable to perform his duties and consequently filed the above 3 Claim Petition claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the compensation. 3. The respondents after being served filed their written statement. They stated that the accident occurred due to the fault of the respondent No.1. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 alleged in their written statement that the accident occurred on account of the respondent No.1 and they denied the averments in the Claim Petition. 4. After framing of the issues and recording of evidence, the learned Presiding Officer partly allowed the Claim Petition and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.70,500/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of final payment. 5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4 6. Shri S. S. Kakodkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the amount awarded by the Tribunal on account of the compensation towards pain and suffering is too low. Learned Counsel further submitted that the appellant had suffered a fracture to the hip bone and consequently he suffered disability which affected his normal work which he was otherwise doing. He also pointed out that there is no measure for compensation towards pain and suffering and as such, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is too meagre. The learned Counsel took me through the award and pointed out that the amount awarded towards pain and suffering due to the accident was Rs.7000/- which is too low and illusory. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the amount paid on account of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life of Rs.10,000/- is also on the lower side. He accordingly submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced. 7. On the other hand, Shri E. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has supported the impugned Judgment. Learned Counsel has pointed out that there is no evidence on record that the appellant had suffered any damages on account of any further loss of 5 income. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the grant of interest on damages which he would suffer in future date is not permissible and the Tribunal is not justified in granting such interest. The learned Counsel further pointed out that considering the overall evidence on record, the Tribunal was justified to fix the compensation on account of pain and suffering and permanent disability at Rs.7000/-. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, I find that the appellant had suffered permanent disability of 7.5% which resulted in the fact that he was bedridden for a period of three months. There is no dispute that the movements of the appellant has curtailed on account of the said accident. There is no doubt that for the purpose of assessing the compensation for pain and suffering there is no standard measure fixed but, however, the Courts are entitled considering the overall evidence on record to fix a just and proper compensation on such count. The process of determining compensation by the Court is an essentially practical task and can never be an exact science. Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of injury and disability. A person who is a victim of an accident suffers not only injury on account of the accident but also suffers in mind and body 6 on account of the accident throughout his life. In the present case, the victim suffered a fracture on account of the accident and as such he would obviously be in agony during the period of his recovery. Considering that the appellant had suffered a fracture to the hip bone and was confined to the household for nearly three months and the disability suffered is a permanent disability as certified by the doctor the appellant is entitled to a further sum of Rs.25,000/- on both the said counts besides the amount of Rs.7000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. In such circumstances, I find that the Tribunal was not justified to fix a sum of Rs.7000/- on account of pain and suffering due to the fact that the appellant had suffered a permanent disability. Considering the overall evidence on record, I find a just and proper compensation in the present case to meet the ends of justice would be by awarding a further sum of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant besides the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned Judgment. 9. In view of the above, I find the amount awarded by the Tribunal is to be modified and a further sum of Rs.25,000/- is to be awarded to the appellant on account of permanent disability, pain and suffering. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the 7 appellant has been awarded interest even on the amount of future loss, I find that the appellant would be entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said sum of Rs.25,000/- from the date of the filing of the Claim Petition upto actual payment. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellant is not justified to contend that the amount awarded by the Tribunal on account of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life is on the lower side, considering the facts of the case. 11. In view of the above, I pass the following Order:- O R D E R 1. The appeal is partly allowed. 2. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 16-7-2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer is modified and it is held that the appellant is entitled for a further additional sum of Rs.25,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition upto actual payment. The remaining part of the award is confirmed. 8 3. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. RD