1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.875 OF 1999 Chandrakant Tatoba Lohar .. Appellant versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation .. Respondent Mr.Sagar Joshi i/by Mr.S.M.Oak for the appellant. Mr.G.S.Hegde for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 23rd November 2009. JUDGMENT: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The original claimant in a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has challenged an award made by the Tribunal on the ground that the compensation fixed is on the lower side. 2. The appellant was police head constable who suffered an accident on 17th July 1993. According to him he sustained serious injuries in the accident as a result he became permanently disabled. His age at the time of accident was 43 years. The Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 2,60,000/- with interest thereon at the rate 12% per annum from the date of 2 institution of the claim petition till payment of the amount. The compensation amount includes a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of amenities of life and another sum of Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal accepted the case made out by the appellant on the basis of documentary evidence that appellant had sustained 100% permanent disability. He submitted that the appellant being a police head constable had to apply for voluntary retirement. He submitted that considering the salary payable to the appellant on the date of his accident, compensation of RS. 2,60,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The appellant examined one Bhaurao Gyanu Patil, a senior clerk in the office of the Superintendent of police at Alibaug. He stated that at the time of accident in July 1993 the gross salary payable to the appellant was Rs.3,460/-. He stated that there was deduction of Rs.948.40/- per month. He pointed out that claim for re- imbursement of expenses of the appellant was sanctioned to the extent of Rs.22,610/-. In the examination-in-chief, he stated that the pension is not yet approved. However, in the cross-examination he stated that the appellant would be entitled to get pension of Rs.1,416/- per month. 5. The appellant claimed sum of Rs.35,000/- on account of expenditure 3 of treatment, out of which he received a sum of Rs.22,610/- from his employer. Even keeping aside the pension amount, on the date of the accident the appellant was drawing a net sum of Rs.2,500/- per month. The pension amount as disclosed by the witness examined by the appellant is Rs.1,416/-. The witness stated that question of payment of salary from 14th March 1994 to 7th November 1995 was under consideration. Taking the salary payable to the appellant as it is, even if appropriate multiplier is applied, compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- fixed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on the lower side especially when the age of the appellant was 43 years at the time of accident. The compensation is just and reasonable. 6. No interference is called for. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (A.S.OKA,J)