1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1006 OF 1996 Tukaram Mallu Malme Appllant versus 1. Sudhir Shivappa Pujari, 2. Shriramk Gopal Kanitkar, 3. United India Insurance Company, Sangli Respondents Mr.M.A.Patil, advocate for the appellant. Mr.M.G.Barve, advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 07th December 2009 JUDGEMENT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the third respondent. The appellant is the claimant in a claim petition filed under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The appellant also filed a separate claim petition under section 92-A of the said Act of 1939. By the impugned judgement and award both the claim petitions have been allowed. The claim petition under section 92-A of the said Act was allowed directing the respondent nos.2 and 3 to pay compensation of Rs.7,500/- with interest @ 12% p.a.. The claim petition under section 110-A was partly allowed and compensation of Rs.10,503/- with interest @ 12% p.a. was awarded. 2. There is no appeal or cross petition filed by any of the respondents. Therefore, the only question which arises in this appeal is as regards 2 quantum of compensation. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the claim of Rs.4,000/- was made by the appellant on account of expenses incurred on medical treatment and claim of Rs.2,000/- was made on account of expenses on account of conveyance, special diet etc.. He submitted that the compensation awarded under the said headings is extremely on lower side. He submitted that the compensation awarded for pain and sufferings of Rs.5,000/- needs to be enhanced. He invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the third respondent supported the impugned judgement and award. 4. I have considered the submissions. In paragraph 10 of the judgement, the learned Member of the Tribunal has considered all the bills and documents placed on record by the appellant which were exhibited and has held that the total expenses incurred by the appellant are Rs. 1,603/-. The learned Member has considered all the documents which were proved by the appellant and has recorded the said finding. As far as conveyance and special diet is concerned, he has awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- considering the fact that the appellant was hospitalized in civil hospital for eight days and thereafter he was hospitalized in a private hospital for five days. The hospitalization was in the year 1987. Considering the expenses incurred by the appellant on medical treatment, the amount awarded of Rs.500/- will have to be treated as a reasonable amount. 5. As far as pain and sufferings is concerned, it must be noted that Dr.Arwade who deposed before the Court had not given any certificate of disability but on the basis of case papers, he deposed before the Court that the disability was to the extent of 10%. The disability related to left ankle. In absence of any disability certificate, by taking the opinion expressed by Dr.Arwade as correct, the compensation of Rs.5,000/- on 3 account of pain and sufferings is reasonable. As far as loss of income is concerned, the learned Member of the Tribunal noted that the appellant continued to be in the employment even after the accident. The learned Member noted that the appellant was not paid salary for the months of March-1987, April-1987 and August-1987. The total pay of the appellant from May-1987 to December-1987 was in the range of Rs.1,450/- to Rs. 1,619/-. The learned Member has noted that the salary sheet showed that for February-1987 the gross salary of the appellant was Rs.1,036/-. Therefore, on account of loss of salary, the learned Member awarded a sum of Rs.3,400/-. The learned Member recorded a finding that the appellant continued to be in service and was drawing total monthly emoluments of Rs.2,301/-. The learned Member, therefore, disbelieved the case of the appellant as regards loss of the income in future. That is how the learned Judge has arrived at total amount of Rs.10,603/-. 6. The compensation amount awarded is just and proper and no interference is called for. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.) Kondvilkar