1 F.A.1968.2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAUTRE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1968 OF 2010 IN M.A.C.P. NO. 565 OF 2008 The New India Assurance Co. Limited ... Appellant Versus Shri. Arun Keshav Shirke and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Bhansali i/by Mr. V.N. Sagare for the appellant. M. T.J. Mendon for respondent no. 1. CORAM : SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : APRIL 18, 2011 P.C. 1. This appeal is by the Insurance company challenging the grant of compensation of Rs.67,500/- to respondent no. 1 by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. The only ground of challenge to the impugned judgment and order is that the amount of compensation awarded to respondent no. 1 is excessive. 2. The injuries sustained by respondent no. 1 described at para 10 of the impugned judgment and order are head injury and fracture to skull at 7 places, injury to the right leg and dislocation of right 2 F.A.1968.2010 shoulder. As a consequence of the injuries, respondent no. 1 is unable to see by his right eye. The Civil Surgeon, Raigad, Alibag has issued disability certificate (Exh. 36) to respondent no. 1 showing permanent disability of 45%. Respondent no. 1 was working with Vinod Constructions as driver. After the accident, he has obviously lost his job. The Tribunal accepted the disability certificate produced by respondent no. 1 to hold that the permanent disability sustained by respondent no. 1 was 45% and granted compensation of Rs.45,000/- towards permanent disability. Respondent no.1 was further granted sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,500/- towards loss of income during the period of medical treatment taken by respondent no. 1 totaling the compensation to Rs.67,700/-. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the court ought to have accepted the percentage of permanent disability of respondent no. 1 as 30% as stated in the medical papers of KEM Hospital where respondent no. 1 had taken treatment. I find no substance in the submission. Besides, perusal of the impugned judgment and order shows that the compensation awarded to respondent no. 1 is in fact wholly inadequate. There are several heads under which respondent no. 1 would have been entitled to receive 3 F.A.1968.2010 compensation. The compensation awarded for the medical treatment of Rs.5,000/- is also too meager. However, Mr. Mendonca states that respondent no. 1 has not filed any appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded to him and he also does not propose to file any cross objection in the present appeal because he does not have necessary financial strength for the same. 4. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by respondent no. 1 and the extent of permanent disability and also the occupation of respondent no. 1, the amount of compensation awarded to him is actually not sufficient. Therefore, the challenge of the appellant on the ground that the compensation is excessive cannot be accepted. The appeal is dismissed. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)