:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 284 OF 2002 Smt. Yeshoda Parwar alias Yeshoda Parab, widow of Sanvla Parwar, major in age, widow, resident of House No. 164, Gaodongri, Canacona, Goa. ... Appellant V e r s u s 1. Shri Shankar Pundalik Girap, son of Pundalik Girap, major in age, driver of truck bearing No. KA-30-1924, resident of Deubag, Sadashiv Gad, Karwar ( house number not known ) 2. Shri Rajesh Kashinath Naik, son of Kashinath Naik, major in age, owner of truck bearing No. KA-30-1924, resident of Sadashiv Gad, Karwar ( house number not known ), 3. National Insurance Company Ltd., insurer of vehicle bearing No. KA-30-1924, Branch Office, Karwar, 4. Shri Premanand Venktesh Naik, son of Venktesh Naik, driver of bus bearing No. GDX-198, major in age, resident of Shiroda, Goa ( house number not known ) 5. Kadamba Transport Corporation, Owner of bus bearing No. GDX-198, Panaji Goa. ... Respondents :2: Mr. S. S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. A. R. Kantak with Ms. Reshma Kantak, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 2 nd SEPTEMBER,2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : This Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20th August, 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao ( in short “the Tribunal”). 2. On 24th July, 1995, the Appellant was travelling as a passenger in a bus of Kadamba Transport Corporation ( Respondent No.5 herein), from Canacona to Karwar. She was sitting on the driver's side, two seats behind the driver's seat. The bus after taking a halt between Painguinim and Mashem, had gone ahead about 100 metres when a truck came from the opposite direction. According to the Appellant, the truck was being driven at a fast speed on the wrong side and gave a dash to the bus. In the collision between the bus and the truck, the Appellant was injured and suffered fractures of tibia and febula of the upper left leg. She was admitted to a government hospital at Margao soon after the accident and was discharged on 9th August, 1995. She, thereafter, filed a Claim Petition against the driver and owner of the truck who are Respondent :3: Nos. 1 and 2 and joined the Insurance Company of the truck as Respondent No.3. The driver of the bus in which the Appellant was travelling as also its owner Kadamba Transport Corporation were joined as Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear and were proceeded ex-parte. The Respondent No.3 was represented by a lawyer and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 also were represented by another lawyer. 3. The Appellant examined herself and also produced on record the panchanama as also the hurt certificate issued by the Directorate of Health Services, Government of Goa, Margao, which shows fracture of the left leg suffered by the Appellant. It appears that the Tribunal referred the Appellant to the Margao hospital (a Government hospital) again for evaluation during the course of trial. The senior orthopedic surgeon of the Government hospital, after examining the Appellant issued a disability certificate which was taken on record and marked as Exhibit 24. Though the Respondent No.3 appeared through an Advocate, he did not cross the Appellant and Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 briefly cross examined the Appellant and did not dispute the correctness of the medical certificate. Their cross examination was limited to the question of negligence of the driver of the bus. The Appellant also examined a pancha witness to prove the panchanama and the sketch which were marked as Exhibits 29 and 30 respectively. :4: 4. After considering the oral testimony of the claimant and the pancha witness, the panchanama and the sketch, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Respondent No.1 – the driver of the truck, was negligent in driving the truck and accident was caused solely on account of his negligence. No negligence was attributable to the Respondent No. 4, the driver of the bus. The Tribunal accordingly held that the Respondent No.1 as a driver, Respondent No.2 as an owner and the Respondent No.3 as an insurer of the truck were liable to pay compensation to the appellant. The Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were exonerated from any liability. The Appellant does not challenge the finding exonerating the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 from any liability. The Appeal is restricted to the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal awarded to the Appellant a sum of Rs.1,350/- for expenses incurred on an attendant at the hospital, Rs.1,450/- for the medicines, Rs.1,200/- for the transportation and also awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for the pain and suffering and permanent disability. The Tribunal has thus awarded a total sum of Rs.29,000/- to the Claimant. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the loss of earning of the Appellant. He submitted that the Appellant was an artisan engaged in doing bamboo work and preparing bamboo baskets etc., and was earning :5: Rs.800/- per month. The Appellant has stated on oath that she cannot do bamboo work after the accident because she cannot sit on the ground due to the fracture of leg and permanent disability left in the leg. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the loss of earning and ought to have awarded the appropriate compensation towards the loss of earning. In support he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar V/s Ram Singh Gaud and others, (2007) 14 SCC 61. In the said decision the Supreme Court has observed as follows :- “8. We find substance in the submission put forth by the counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have not awarded any compensation towards loss of future income. After the fracture of tibia, it is doubtful if the appellant can even drive again. Even if he pursues some other vocation, he would not be able to earn as much as he is earning now. The disability suffered by the appellant would surely reduce his earning capacity. Therefore, the appellant is required to be compensated for the loss of earning due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident.” 6. In the case of Sunil Kumar ( supra ), the Supreme Court has held that in addition to the compensation for permanent disability suffered :6: by the Appellant therein, he was entitled to the compensation towards the loss of earning. The decision applies in all forces to the fact of the case. In my view, the Tribunal erred in not considering the claim of the Appellant towards the loss of earning. The Appellant appears to be a rustic woman engaged in doing artisan work of preparing bamboo baskets. She has given her age as 61 years on the date of the deposition which was recorded after 7 years after the accident. The age of the Appellant was 54 years on the date of the accident. Taking into consideration that such an artisan work can be done at home by the village folk women well over they cross 60 years of age, I am inclined to take the multiplier of 8 years for the loss of income. Though the Appellant has stated that she was earning about Rs.800/- per month, there is no other evidence about her earnings. Taking into consideration the lack of corroborative evidence and the normal human tendency of exaggeration, I take earnings to be about Rs.400/- per month making yearly earning of Rs.4,800/-. Applying multiplier of 8 years, the loss of earning would be Rs.38,400/-. Considering the uncertainty of the life, the amount is reduced to Rs.25,000/- towards the loss of earning. 7. No other point is urged. For these reasons, the Appeal is allowed in part. In addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the Appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the loss of earning making the total compensation to Rs.54,000/-. The Respondent :7: Nos. 1 to 3 shall jointly and severally pay to the Appellant a sum of Rs.54,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim Petition till payment and all costs of the Appeal. D. G. KARNIK, J. at*