THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3185 of 2000 Date:19.11.2009 Between: Thota Ramgopal. ..Appellant. and Devender Rao and another. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3185 of 2000 ORDER: This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation. The claimant, who was working as Bank Manager, aged about 40 years, suffered an accident on 19.08.1993. When he was driving a scooter – AIQ 7543 at Chaderghat bridge, Hyderabad, a lorry bearing No.AP 15V 173 came in opposite direction and dashed against the scooter. The injuries suffered by the claimant were treated in different hospitals and ultimately, at Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad. While, the Police registered Crime No.182 of 1993 against the driver of the offending vehicle and prosecuted him before the Court of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, the claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- . In support of his claim petition, he examined himself - P.W.1, a witness to the accident - P.W.2 and the Orthopedic Doctor - P.W.3. The claimant also filed Exs.A-1 and A-2, F.I.R. and charge sheet respectively, apart from Ex.A-3 – Discharge certificate, Ex.A-4 – Pay slip, Ex.A-5 – bunch of medical bills, Ex.A-6 – Disability certificate and other documents - Exs.A-7 to A-12, with which we are not immediately concerned in this appeal. The Tribunal has examined the material in the light of the evidence adduced by the claimant. As no evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, issue No.1 regarding the cause of the accident due to rash and negligent driving, was found in favour of the claimant and against the driver of the offending vehicle. In respect of issue No.2 regarding entitlement of compensation, the Tribunal determined the compensation under different heads. Towards loss of earnings, the Tribunal found that the salary of the claimant was Rs.8,746/- as per Ex.A-4 and granted entire leave salary for 2 ½ months i.e., Rs.20,407/-. Regarding transportation to hospital, a sum of Rs.10,000/-, towards extra nourishment and medicines, a sum of Rs.10,000/-, towards pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, a sum of Rs.20,000/- were granted, and thus an aggregate amount of Rs.60,407/- was awarded with 12% interest. To the extent of disallowed claims, the present appeal is filed by the claimant. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the Tribunal has not considered the disability, which was certified under Ex.A-6. The learned counsel also states that no damages were granted with regard to clothing as well as the scooter damage, and as such seeks appropriate enhancement. The learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contends that it is only a case of fracture to the leg, no disability as such is possible and even as per the evidence of P.W.3 – Doctor, little physio therapy after the surgery would give sufficient moment and there would be no disability. I have considered the aforesaid contentions in the light of the evidence on record. I have seen Ex.A-6 – Certificate of Disability issued by Orthopedic Surgeon of NIMS, which no doubt shows the percentage of disability at 20%. The said aspect coupled with evidence of P.W.3 was considered by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the claimant is drawing the same salary as he was drawing prior to the accident, it cannot be said that he has suffered any disability. The said approach of the Tribunal to my mind is unsustainable inasmuch as for a salaried person, the disability, even if suffered, would not result in reduction of his salary. It is the comfort and quality of life which would suffer on account of disability incurred. The disability, therefore, may not directly result in loss of earnings in case of salaried person and merely on account of that compensation under the said head cannot be denied. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in that regard, therefore, deserves consideration. It is, however, noticed that the claimant is the Bank Manager aged about 40 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has granted just compensation under various heads as discussed above. Under most of the heads, the amount as claimed has been granted substantially. In the circumstances, it would be just and proper to award a further sum of Rs.25,000/- towards disability suffered by the claimant in modification of the award granted by the Tribunal. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant with regard to damages to clothing and scooter is not supported by any evidence and in any case marginal amounts were claimed, they having been disallowed by the Tribunal, no interference in that respect is called for. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation for a further sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only), which shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. No order as to costs. __________________________ (VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J) 19th November, 2009 GHN