* 1 * F.A. 110.2000 18.3.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 110 OF 2000 Shri. Vijay Devram Sakure .......Appellant V/S. Rajbasha Shahajahan Jamadar & another .........Respondents * * * * * * Mr. S.M. Oka, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent no.1. Mrs. Anita Agarwal, Advocate for respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 18 March, 2011. P.C. : 1. This First Appeal preferred by the original claimant is for enhancement of the compensation awarded to him for the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident by the judgment and order dated 2nd July, 1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigad-Alibag. 2. On 1st March, 1993 the appellant was returning from his office * 2 * F.A. 110.2000 18.3.2011 on a scooter. When he reached near Hospital of Zenith Steel Company at Bhanvaj, Khopoli road, Taluka-Khalapur, District-Raigad jeep bearing registration number MH-06/A/9450 driven by respondent no.1 came from the opposite direction. It came to the wrong side. Seeing the jeep coming in his direction, the appellant stopped his scooter immediately and asked the pillion rider to get down. When the appellant was getting down, the jeep dashed against him and he fell down on the pavement. The scooter came below the jeep and the appellant got dragged to a distance of 25 to 30 feet alongwith the scooter. The appellant suffered injuries to his left elbow and other parts of the body. He filed an application seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him. The total amount of compensation claimed by him was Rs.1,00,000/- under different heads. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep and the appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 12% on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal then considered the claim of the appellant for compensation under different heads and awarded him compensation of Rs.26,000/- with 12% interest from the date of the petition till realisation. * 3 * F.A. 110.2000 18.3.2011 3. The learned counsel for the appellant, submits in fairness, that the application for enhancement of the compensation can be restricted only to one head which has not been considered by the Tribunal at all and that is compensation for loss of future amenities” and loss of “ “ expectation of life”. The Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 9,000/- for medical treatment and expenses on the basis of the bills produced and the oral evidence of the appellant and Rs.2500/- for special diet. It has also granted Rs.9500/- towards loss of earning by the appellant during the period of treatment. The appellant was on leave from 2nd March, 1993 to 15th May, 1993 on medical ground and the Tribunal allowed the salary for the period as compensation. As regards the pain and suffering during the period of treatment, he has been awarded Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal has specifically refused compensation for loss of future earnings on the ground that the appellant did not adduce cogent and convincing evidence that his future prospects of earning are marred. It noted that, on the contrary, it could be seen from the record that the appellant was doing his job as usual and drawing his salary in the regular course. Thus, there is no loss of future earnings. 4. As already mentioned above, the Tribunal however failed to * 4 * F.A. 110.2000 18.3.2011 consider one more head under which the appellant is entitled to compensation on account of the permanent disability sustained by him and, that is, loss of amenities in life and loss of expectation to life. The evidence on record shows that the permanent disability suffered by the appellant is of Pain in right knee joint during movement and “ difficulty during sitting.” Since these two activities are to be continuously performed by a person in all his day to day activities and considering the activity of the appellant of working in office, in my opinion, compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be just and appropriate compensation for loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. 5. Therefore, the Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 2nd July, 1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigad, Alibag is modified to grant additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant on account of loss of amenities and expectation of life. The appellant will also be entitled to interest at the same rate as granted by the impugned judgment and order, on the additional compensation awarded by this order. The interest, however, will start running from the date of this order. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]