1 ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 739 OF 1996 Shri Bajarang Namdeo Balip, ) Age 39 years, Occupation – Nil, ) Residing at Tondale, Taluka Man, ) District : Satara. ).. Appellant Vs 1. Shri Shankar M. Thombare, ) Age about 45 years, Occupation–Service,) Residing at Phaltan , Taluka – Phaltan, ) District – Satara. ) 2. The Maharashtra State Road Transport ) Corporation, Vahatuk Bhavan, ) Dr. Anandrao Nair Marg, ) Bombay Central, Mumbai – 8. ) 3. Sadashiv Nathu Jagtap, ) Age Adult, Occupation – Business, ) Residing at 1053, Shukrawar Peth, ) Pune – 411 002. ) 4. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., ) 45, Saraswati Vilas Building, ) Laxmi Road, Pune – 411 030. ).. Respondents -- Shri Manish Pable i/by Shri A.S. Rao for the Appellant. Shri G.S. Hegde along with Shri C.M. Lokesh for Respondent No.2. Shri D.R. Mahadik i/by S.R. Singh for Respondent No.4. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : . The original Claimant in a Claim Petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has preferred this Appeal for enhancement in the compensation awarded by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune. 2. The case of the Appellant was that he was employed with the Food Corporation of India, Bombay. On 17th August, 1987, the Appellant along with his wife and the children were proceeding by a bus owned by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ( the 2nd Respondent ) from Bombay to Phaltan. The 1st Respondent was driving the bus. According to the Appellant, the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The bus dashed against a car. Due to the impact, the bus tilted. As a result, the Appellant was seriously wounded. The 3rd Respondent is the owner of the car and the 4th Respondent is the insured. As far as negligence is concerned, the Tribunal found that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent. Out of the claim of Rs.8,50,000/-, the Tribunal by the impugned award, granted compensation of Rs.4,46,000/- inclusive of no fault liability. Out of the said amount of Rs.4,46,000/-, a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- towards future loss was granted along with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award till realisation and further directed that the remaining amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application i.e. 16th December, 3 1987 till realisation. 3. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,15,600/- on account of loss of income for a period of five years and eight months. A sum of Rs.66,336/- was granted on account of medical expenses, Rs.3,000/- was granted on account of cost of attendant and gratuitous services rendered by the relatives of the Appellant, Rs.6,000/- each was granted on account of conveyance and special diet. A sum of Rs.2,29,500/- was granted on account of future loss of income and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was granted on account of pain and suffering. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant in this Appeal for enhancement has invited my attention to the income certificates placed on record. He pointed out that the pay slips of September, 1986 and December, 1986 show that the gross salary of the Appellant was more than Rs.3,600/- per month. He submitted that the Tribunal committed an error by taking the income at Rs.1,700/- per month. He submitted that the finding of the Tribunal is that the Appellant had suffered 90% permanent disability and that he is confined to bed. He submitted that on account of cost of nursing and attendant charges, only a sum of Rs.3,000/- has been granted. He submitted that looking to the seriousness of the injuries caused, the amount of Rs.20,000/- granted on account of pain and suffering is on lower side. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents. They have supported the impugned award. 6. The only issue to be decided is as regards the claim for enhancement as there is no cross-appeal or Cross objection by the Respondents. As far as the income is concerned, the documents on which reliance is placed by the Appellant show that the Appellant was employed on daily wages basis. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the salary slip placed on record of the February, 1987 which shows that the net amount paid to the Appellant was Rs.2,084/-. The salary slips produced by the Appellant show that he was not in the regular employment but he was in the employment on daily wages basis. The Tribunal referred to the salary slip of July, 1987 which is the month preceding the month of accident which shows that his take home salary was approximately Rs.1,700/- per month. The Tribunal has taken the said figure without any further deduction. Considering the fact that the Appellant was employed on daily wages, the income taken by the Tribunal at the rate of Rs.1,700/- per month cannot be faulted with. The Appellant has been granted loss of income for a period of five years and eight months at the rate of Rs.1,700/- per month. By applying multiplier 15, the future loss of income has been quantified at Rs.3,06,000/-. The deduction of only 25% has been made from the said amount on account of lumpsum payment in advance. Therefore, it is not possible to find fault with the compensation awarded under the said award on account of loss of earnings. 5 7. As far as the injuries are concerned, the medical certificate produced by the Appellant has been relied upon by the Tribunal. After referring to the medical certificate, the Tribunal has observed thus:- “.....it is clear that the applicant has sustained grievous injuries including interalia Traumatic quadriple paresis resulting into cervical canal stenosis. The applicant has been since the date of accident totally bed ridden. The permanent disability as certified by the doctor is to the extent of 90 per cent.” 8. After noting the permanent disability to the extent of 90% and after noting that the Appellant has been virtually bed ridden, only a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded. Considering the extent of disabilities, the said amount is required to be enhanced by a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Looking to the extent of disability, it is obvious that the Appellant will need nursing and attendance throughout the remaining life. In fact, a reasonable estimate of the said amount at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month was made by the Appellant. However, the Tribunal has chosen to award only a sum of Rs.3,000/- on the said count. The yearly charges of attendance can be taken at Rs.3,600/- and applying multiplier of 15, compensation of Rs.54,000/- ought to have been awarded on the said count. Thus, the enhancement of Rs.51,000/- has to be granted after deducting the sum of Rs.3,000/- granted by the Tribunal. Compensation of Rs.6,000/- on account of travelling charges and a sum of Rs.6,000/- on account of special diet is reasonable. 6 Compensation of Rs.66,336/- has been granted on account of medical expenses on the basis of the bills produced. Thus, the total enhancement will be of Rs. 81,000/- ( Rs.30,000/- + 51,000/- ). Considering the fact that in a recent past, the rates of interest on fixed deposit with Nationalized banks have been reduced, interest @ 9% per annum deserves to be awarded on the enhanced amount. 9. Hence, the Appeal is disposed of by passing the following order. (a) In addition to the compensation awarded under the impugned judgment and award, the Appellant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.81,000/- together with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from 16th December, 1987 on the sum of Rs.30,000/- till realisation or deposit of the amount with Tribunal. Interest on balance amount of Rs.51,000/- shall be payable at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of Award of the Tribunal i.e. 30th April, 1993 till deposit of the amount with Tribunal. The liability of the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to pay additional amount will be joint and several. (b) Time of four months is granted to deposit the 7 compensation amount as per this judgment. (c) The Appeal is partly allowed in above terms. The Appellant will be entitled to proportionate costs of this Appeal from Respondent Nos.2 to 4. (A.S.OKA, J) ash