1 FA.880.00 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 880 OF 2000 Anand alias Anant Tukaram Gaikwad. ... Appellant Versus 1. M/s. Samir Engineering Works. 2. New India Assurance Company Limited. ... Respondents ----- Mr. T.J.Mendon for the Appellant. Mr. Amit Lathkar i/b Mr.Rajesh P. Behere for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 05 th July, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 stated that he has returned the papers to the Respondent No.2. He placed on record a copy of letter dated 21 st June, 2011 sent by him to the Respondent No.2. The letter is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. 2 FA.880.00 2 The appeal is filed by the original claimant for enhancement in compensation granted by the Tribunal. 3 The Appellant is a handcart puller by occupation. A car gave dash to the handcart pulled by the Appellant. As a result, the Appellant sustained injuries. He sustained fracture of tibia fibula. He was required to be hospitalized. The finding of the Tribunal is that the driver of the car owned by the Respondent No.1 was driving the car in rash and negligent manner. The Respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the vehicle. Compensation of Rs.23,375/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum has been granted. 4 The first submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant is that the documents on record show that the Appellant was hospitalized for more than three months and twenty days, but the Tribunal has granted loss of income only for a period of three months that also at the rate which is less than the income of the Appellant. His second submission is that though the disability certificate was proved, no compensation has been granted. His third submission is that interest 3 FA.880.00 ought to have been granted at the rate of 12% per annum. 5 I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the record. As far as the second submission is concerned, though a disability certificate of Dr.Kuldip Singh Sandhu was produced on record, the same was not proved and therefore, was marked as Exhibit – X-1. Dr.Kuldip Singh was not examined. There is no other evidence of disability. Hence, the compensation on that ground could not have been granted. 6 The Appellant in his deposition stated that he was getting salary of Rs.800/- per month from his employer. He stated that initially, he was hospitalized from 6 th August, 1991 to 21 st August, 1991 in the Nair Municipal Hospital in Mumbai. One iron rod was inserted by surgery. This evidence is supported by the case papers at Exhibit – 11 (collectively). The case papers also show that on 27 th August, 1991, the Appellant attended the hospital as out patient. Again, he visited the hospital on 10 th September, 1991. 4 FA.880.00 7 In the cross-examination of the Appellant, it is brought on record that he was admitted in the Kasturba Hospital. In the cross- examination, he stated that he was admitted in the Kasturba Hospital for three months. Thereafter, the original papers from the Kasturba Hospital were called for and the same were marked as Exhibit – 12. In further cross-examination, the Appellant stated that he was unable to recollect as to how many days he was indoor patient in the Kasturba Hospital. He stated that one iron rod inserted at the time of surgery, was to be removed after five to six years. 8 Considering the aforesaid evidence on record, loss of income should have been granted atleast for a period of six months equivalent to Rs.4,800/- calculated at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. There was no reason to calculate the income at the rate of Rs.650/- or Rs.600/- per month. In the examination-in-chief, it is brought on record that after the accident the Appellant is not able to do heavy work and original work of pulling the cart. Hence, he did the work of painting and thereafter, he was doing the work of carrying tiffins. Thus, his income 5 FA.880.00 was reduced as a result of injuries sustained in the accident. The age of the Appellant was 27 years at the time of accident. Taking overall view of the evidence, this was a case where a sum of Rs.10,000/- ought to have been granted on account of loss of income due to injury and future loss instead of Rs.2,000/-. 9 It is true that when the claim petition was filed in the year 1991, interest at the rate of 12% per annum was being granted by the Tribunal. Later on, during the pendency of the claim petition, the interest rates were substantially reduced. Hence, no case is made out to interfere with the rate of interest fixed at 9% per annum. On the enhanced amount, interest will be payable at the rate of 8% per annum. 10 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The appeal is partly allowed on above terms ; ii. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is enhanced by a further amount of Rs.8,000/-, which will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization or deposit of the amount with the 6 FA.880.00 Tribunal ; and iii. The Appellant will be entitled to proportionate costs of the Appeal. [ A.S.OKA, J ]