1 FA 962/1997 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 962 OF 1997 Rajendra Dayabhai Patel .. Appellant V/s 1. Life Insurance Corporation 2. United India Insurance Company .. Respondents Mr. S.M. Oak for the appellant. Rohan S. Darandale i/b Mr. R.S. Datar for respondent no.2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent no.2. The respondent no.1 is absent though served. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th September 1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane (for short “the Tribunal”) awarding the compensation of Rs.75,000/- in place of Rs.1,00,000/- claimed by the appellant. 2 FA 962/1997 3. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”), who claims to be a driver by vocation, was travelling as a passenger in an autorickshaw from village Savta to Dahanu. At about 8.30 p.m. a jeep owned by the respondent no.1 and insured with the respondent no.2 came from the opposite direction and collided with the autorickshaw in which the claimant was travelling as a passenger. The claimant was injured and suffered fracture and multiple C.L.W. According to the claimant, he spent more than Rs.55,000/- on his medical treatment and he has also suffered a permanent partial disability. He therefore filed a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. By an order dated 26th September 1996, the Tribunal allowed the application in part and awarded the compensation of Rs.75,000/-. The claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/-. 4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent no.1 (owner of the jeep) did not appear and did not contest the application. The respondent no.2 (insurance company) however appeared and contested the claim application. After considering the evidence adduced on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the jeep was negligent in driving it and the accident 3 FA 962/1997 was caused on account of his negligence. The Tribunal also considered the evidence adduced regarding the expenses incurred by the claimant towards the medical treatment and held that he has spent an amount of Rs.51,583.45 on medical treatment. In addition, the Tribunal was of the view that a sum of Rs.20,000/- be awarded to him for pain and suffering, loss of income, etc. and thus the claimant was entitled to the total compensation of Rs.71,583.45. The Tribunal rounded up the said claim and awarded Rs.75,000/- to the claimant. The respondents have accepted the said award and have not filed any appeal or cross objections. Before me also, learned counsel for the respondents did not challenge the finding of negligence. Hence, the only question that is required to be considered is whether the compensation awarded is just and proper. 5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant produced the bills of medicines and expenses incurred by him for the medical treatment. The total value of the bills/receipts produced by the claimant comes to Rs.51,583.45. The Tribunal has awarded the said amount and no fault can be found with it. Counsel for the claimant, however, submitted that the claimant was required to go to Dr. Natu for private treatment and was required to spend Rs.5,000/- for such treatment. However, no bill or receipt for 4 FA 962/1997 any charges allegedly paid to Dr. Natu other than the one which was covered in the sum of Rs.51,583.45 awarded by the Tribunal, was produced before it. The Tribunal therefore rightly disallowed the claim for the additional amount of Rs.5,000/- alleged to have been incurred for the treatment taken from Dr. Natu. Counsel for the claimant then submitted that the claimant was also admitted in the Nair Hospital for few days and had spent Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- for the treatment at Nair Hospital. However, the claimant had lost the original bills and receipts. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 10,000/- for the money spent at Nair Hospital. I am unable to agree. Firstly, Nair Hospital is a municipal hospital where the treatment is free or provided on nominal charges. Secondly, no bill or receipt was produced for having incurred any expenses for any medical treatment at the Nair Hospital. In the absence of any material on record to show that the claimant had spent Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- for treatment at the Nair Hospital, the Tribunal has rightly disallowed the said claim and has restricted the claim to Rs.51,583.45 for which the bills/receipts were produced by him. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded for pain and suffering and loss of 5 FA 962/1997 future prospects and employment is too meager. He further submitted that the claimant had suffered permanent partial disability and the amount of Rs.20,000/- was too meager to cover that claim. The medical certificate shows that the permanent disability suffered by the claimant was only of 5%. The medical certificate does not show that on account of the said small permanent disability the claimant would not be able to carry out his vocation as a driver. The claimant also did not state that on account of the disability he was not in a position to continue his vocation as a driver. The amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded for pain and suffering and the loss of income during the period of his medical treatment, in my opinion, is not unreasonably low. In any event, the Tribunal has awarded further sum of Rs. 3416.55 towards rounding up. If this amount of rounding up is taken into consideration, the total amount of compensation for pain and suffering and loss of income during the period of medical treatment comes to Rs.23,416/- appears to be just and fair taking into consideration the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 1989. Taking into consideration the value of rupee in the year 1989, that amount cannot be said to be unreasonably low. 7. For these reasons, there is no merit in the appeal which is 6 FA 962/1997 hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)