* 1 * F.A. 940.98 28.3.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 940 OF 1998 Shashikant Shivram Boravake .......Appellant V/S. 1. Shashi Salauddin Azami & Ors. .........Respondents * * * * * * Mr. R.M. Haridas i/by. Mr. P.N. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.R. Singh i/by. Ms. Bhavana Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no.5. None for respondents no.1 to 4. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 28 March, 2011. P.C. : 1. This Appeal is preferred by the original claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. The accident involved two vehicles owned by respondents no.1 and 3 respectively. Respondents no.2 and 4 are their respective drivers. Respondent no.5 is the Insurer for both the vehicles. The appeal is opposed by respondent no.5. Respondents no.1 to 4 though served are not present before the Court to oppose the appeal. 2. On 4th November, 1989 at about 9.45 a.m., the tourist car by * 2 * F.A. 940.98 28.3.2011 which the appellant was travelling rammed into a stationary trailor. In the accident, the appellant suffered multiple injuries including injuries to the vertebal column and spinal cord. The injuries resulted into crippling of his legs. Since then, he is compelled to use either a walker or a wheel chair. On account of the injuries sustained, the Tribunal awarded him total compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- under different heads, which is sought to be enhanced. As regards the involvement of two vehicles, negligence on the part of the drivers of the vehicle and the liability of the owner, as well as, the insurers to pay compensation to the appellant, the same has been held in favour of the appellant. Neither the owners nor the Insurer has challenged this decision. 3. The appellant claims to be an agriculturist and a social worker. He was also a Director of sugar factory. He owns agricultural land admeasuring 30 acres which he has been cultivating through others on contract basis. On appreciation of the entire evidence before it, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,75,000/- towards medical treatment as claimed by the appellant. There is no enhancement of this amount sought by the appellant. The enhancement sought is under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of future earning and loss * 3 * F.A. 940.98 28.3.2011 of earning capacity. Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, the extent of disablement suffered by him, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be just and reasonable. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of enjoyment of life. Considering the fact that the appellant is crippled in both the legs for life and he had to take extensive treatment at different hospitals and also at home, in my opinion, the amount of compensation awarded towards pain and suffering and towards loss of enjoyment of life deserves increase by Rs.10,000/- each. 4. The Tribunal has awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards loss of earning, as well as, loss of earning capacity. The justification given for this in the impugned judgment is that the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence, as regards this income. He has stated in the cross-examination that in his absence, the servants used to do the work entrusted to them. He used to do most of the work done on contract basis. His own role was limited to supervision. Dr. Ichapuria, examined by the appellant admitted in his cross-examination that it will be possible for the appellant to give * 4 * F.A. 940.98 28.3.2011 instructions by sitting at one place. Mr. Joshi, submits, referring to the evidence of the appellant in his examination-in-chief, as well as, the cross-examination, that the appellant used to give only a portion of his land for cultivation through a Contractor. But in the evidence, the appellant has not specified the area of the total land of 30 acres which was cultivated through a Contractor. It is apparent from the evidence that part of the agricultural land was personally cultivated by the appellant by employing the two permanent workers. This activity undoubtedly required more supervision by the appellant than the activity of cultivation of part of the land through contractors. It was, however, necessary for the appellant to lead specific evidence as regards the extent of loss suffered by him in case of personal cultivation of land by him. It is not the case of the appellant that on account of the permanent disability suffered due to the injury sustained in the accident. He has had to employ more servants to do his job or that he had to make any arrangement for cultivation of the land. In the absence of such specific evidence, though, considering the extent of injuries sustained by the appellant and the consequent permanent disability, any increase in the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of earning as well as loss of earning * 5 * F.A. 940.98 28.3.2011 capacity has to be on lumpsum basis. Considering the facts of the case and the evidence, in my opinion an enhancement of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earning, as well as, loss of earning capacity would be just and reasonable. 5. Thus the total enhancement of compensation to be awarded to the appellant would be of Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation of the amount. Considering the passage of time from the date of the award in the year 1994 till now, in my opinion, award of interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the enhanced amount of Rs. 50,000/- would be proper. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed. Respondents no.1, 3 and 5 are directed jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) in addition to Rs.2,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation on the enhanced amount of Rs.50,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation is payable by respondents no.1 and 3 in the same ratio as provided for by the impugned judgment and order. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]