1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 283 of 1997 DILIP KUMAR & ORS V/S HARISH & ORS Mr. KISHAN SINGH for Mr. MRIDUL JAIN, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. JAGDISH VYAS for Mr. VD VYAS and Mr. MANOJ BHANDARI for the respondent Date of Order : 5.9.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the owner and driver, against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungapur dt. 26.6.1996, awarding a total sum of Rs. 45,000/-, by way of compensation for the personal injury, where the victim has suffered communicated fracture of upper third of femur, apart from other fractures. The necessary facts are, that on 13.3.1990, the claimant was traveling in truck No. RJJ-3656, sitting in the cabin, near the driver. The truck was negligently driven, as a result of which he fell down, and was run over by the rear wheel. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 5,71,000/- under different heads. 2 Since in the present case the controversy involved is only about quantum, I need not go into the other aspects of the matter. The learned Tribunal framed issue no. 4 on the question of quantum, and held, that the claimant has deposed to have spent Rs. 54,000/- on medicines, and Rs. 9000/- on the fees of doctor, Rs. 3400/- are deposed to have been spent on transportation of victim, and had suffered a loss of Rs. 18,000/- on account of having not been able to run the shop for a period one year, he has also deposed, that even now his leg is not normal, and he is suffering a loss of income of Rs. 1000/- per month. The learned Tribunal found, that the bills of medicines produced on the record total to a sum of Rs. 15,200/-. Then, regarding transportation, bills have been produced being Ex. 6 and 7, which total to Rs. 1800/-. Thus, this amount of Rs. 17,000/- has been awarded. Then, a permanent disablement certificate has been produced being Ex. 12, but then the learned Tribunal has considered, that in Ex. 12 there is no mention about permanent disablement, but it only mentions about sustenance of fracture and operation. It may be observed here, that there are two documents marked as Ex. 12, one is available at page C-19/15 dt. 11.11.1995, and the other one is available at page C-10/24, which is dated 25.7.1990. Out of the above it is the certificate dated 25.7.1990, which recites for sustenance 3 of fracture and also recites about the injured having been operated, and nailing, plating and bone grafting having been done. Be that as it may. Since no amount has been awarded by relying upon Ex. 12 being dated 11.11.1995, I need not go into that aspect of the matter. Then the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,000/- as general damages, i.e. Rs. 10000/- for two grievous injuries, and Rs. 2000/- for two simple injuries. Then, another sum of Rs. 16,000/- has been awarded for other damages, expenditure, and inconvenience suffered by the claimant. Assailing the impugned award it is contended, that the learned Tribunal was in error in awarding Rs. 16000/- as awarded. Learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand supported the impugned award, and contended, that the learned Tribunal has only purportedly awarded, the actual amount of bills produced. The learned Tribunal has not considered separately the other expenditure incurred on account of the injured having remained hospitalised, expenditure incurred on the attendants, traveling, lodging boarding etc, and pain and agony suffered, also on account of operation having been performed upon him, comprising of nailing, plating and grafting of bone. In such circumstances, it is contended that the amount awarded is rather on the lower side. 4 I have considered the submissions and have gone through the record. On a birds eye view the calculation of the bills, proved on record, I find that the amount awarded for the medicines is Rs. 15,200/-, while the bills of medical fees and medicine etc. aggregate to a far higher amount. Then, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 12,000/- by way of general damages under Section 163A, while the present was not a claim under Section 163A, rather the claim was under Section 163, and the claimant was entitled to be awarded compensation for the expenditure incurred under other heads also, apart from the agony and inconvenience suffered, on account of operation during hospitalisation, and during the period he underwent treatment, so also for the inconvenience to be suffered in future. Likewise he was also entitled to compensation for the loss of income from the job. In such circumstances when an all told additional amount of Rs. 16,000/- has been awarded, it cannot be said to be requiring any interference in appeal. The appeal thus has no force, and is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /sushil/