1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. FIRST APPEAL NO.225 OF 1995. FIRST APPEAL NO.225 OF 1995. FIRST APPEAL NO.225 OF 1995. Anant Krishna Gavade : Appellant. versus Amrutbhai G. Patel & ors. : Respondents. Mr.G.S.Hegade with Mr.Lokesh for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J. CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J. CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J. DATED : 11th APRIL 2005. DATED : 11th APRIL 2005. DATED : 11th APRIL 2005. ORAL ORDER ORAL ORDER ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Mr.Hegade for the appellant. Nobody is present for the respondents though served. The Appellant was a 9 years old boy when he met with an accident which resulted in fracture of the right femer middle of the applicant/appellant. He has suffered permanent 2 2 2 disability to the extent of 10 to 12 percent. He is limping and could not walk normally. The whole career of the appellant/applicant is spoiled because of the accident. The tribunal observed, "If we take into consideration the earning capacity of the applicant as Rs.1200/- per month, then the loss of earning for 30 years will come to Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. But in the present case, no reliable evidence is led on behalf of applicant to prove the exact loss of earning by the applicant." This is not a proper approach to look at the accident in the case of minor boy suffered from such accident. The tribunal should have considered the future life; his dependency because of the accident and the defect that is to remain with him permanently. Giving compensation of Rs.25,000/- is not at all proper. In the circumstances though the claimant has claimed Rs.Two lacs, Rs.80,000/- would be proper. Hence the order :- :ORDER: The appeal is partly allowed. 3 3 3 The order of the tribunal is modified. The claimant will be entitled to Rs.80,000/- in all with interest and costs as awarded by the tribunal. Since nobody is present for the respondents in the appeal, no order as to costs. [D.G.DESHPANDE] 11/04/2005 JUDGE.