1 F.A. No.432/95 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 432 OF 1995 Pandurang s/o Vaijnath Ranvirkar, Age: 30 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Bhagyanagar, Nanded. .. APPELLANT Versus 1. Govinddas s/o Babdas Bairaji, Age: 44 years, Occ: S.T. Driver, B.No.2962, S.T. Depot Kandhar, At & Taluka Kandhar, District Nanded. 2. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through Divisional Controller, Nanded. 3. Ganpat s/o Venkatrao More, Age: 34 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Sonkhed, Taluka Kandhar. 4. Uttamrao s/o Hanmantrao Wadaje, Age: 37 years, Occ: Owner of Truck No.MHB-8122 R/o. Narangal, Tq. Biloli. (Police Station, Naigaon). 5. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Nanded Gurudwara Chaurasta, Nanded. .. RESPONDENTS ... Mr. A.R. Kale, Advocate holding for Mr. A.R. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.B. Gatne, Advocate for respondent No.5. ... 2 F.A. No.432/95 CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 2ND DECEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for respondent No.5. Though other respondents are duly served, no one appeared on their behalf when the matter was called out for final hearing. 2. In the present appeal, the appellant - original claimant challenges the judgment and award dated 18-03-1995 passed by the District Judge as an Ex-officio Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 48 of 1986, for enhancement of compensation. A FEW FACTS OF THE MATTER ARE AS UNDER : 3 F.A. No.432/95 3. The appellant was working as labour and was getting Rs.15/- per day i.e. Rs.450/- per month. The accident took place on 02-05-1985 when he was coming in S.T. bus bearing No. MTB-5573 from Kandhar to Nanded. When the bus came near Vishnupuri, one truck bearing No. MHB-8122 came from opposite direction in high speed. The said S.T. bus and the said truck brushed each other. As the appellant was sitting on the bench last but one on the rear near the window and was resting his hand on the window, tin sheet of S.T. bus which broke, caused serious injury to his right hand. Immediately, he was taken to the Government hospital and he was in the hospital for about 18 days and during the treatment, his right hand was amputated from above the elbow. 4. Thereafter, the appellant filed claim petition under Section 110-A read with Section 92 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation initially of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest 4 F.A. No.432/95 @18% p.a. from the date of accident till realisation. Later on, he amended his claim petition and claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. 5. Original respondent Nos.1,2,4 and 6 filed their written statement opposing the claim petition. 6. Considering the documentary evidence produced on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.80,000/- inclusive of 'No Fault Liability', with interest on unpaid amount @12% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation, to the appellant. 7. I heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 - Insurance Company. 5 F.A. No.432/95 8. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the documentary evidence on record while awarding compensation. The Tribunal should have awarded compensation not less than Rs. 3,00,000/-. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation for sufferings, pains due to amputation of hand and loss of comfort and further will suffer difficulties throughout his life. He submits that the appellant was working as labour and was earning a sum of Rs.450/- per month. Even multiplier of 15 is taken, the appellant is entitled to sum of Rs.90,000/-. These facts are not considered by the Tribunal. He submits that the Tribunal without giving any reasoning, awarded Rs.80,000/- inclusive medical expenses, pains, sufferings, loss of income during hospitalization and loss of income due to disablement. He submits that the Tribunal should have awarded compensation for sufferings, pains due to amputation of hand and loss of comfort and 6 F.A. No.432/95 sufferings difficulties throughout his life also. 9. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant relied on the judgment in the matter of Shaikh Parvej Qamar s/o Kuruzama Azmi VS. Bajaj Auto Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2006(12) LJSOFT 193. In that case, Bombay High Court awarded compensation to the claimant on various clauses viz. towards pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, loss of expectation of life, discomfort and inconveniences, part pecuniary losses i.e. loss of salary, loss of future earning, medical expenses, nursing services at home etc. 10. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 - Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has considered overall evidence on record and awarded reasonable compensation of Rs.80,000/- including all counts. He submits that the Tribunal at the time of 7 F.A. No.432/95 awarding lump sum compensation of Rs.80,000/-, taken into consideration the previous judgments in the matter of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala vs. Qimatrai Jain and others, reported in 1985(1) T.A.C. 52 ( P & H ) and Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation vs. Dodda Somayya Julu Sitaram Murthy, reported in 1988 A.C.J. 44 ( A.P.). He pointed out that in the matter of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala (supra), Punjab and Haryana High Court granted lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the person of 21 years. In that case, right arm of two persons were amputated. In another matter of Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (supra), Andhra Pradesh High Court awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- as a lump sum compensation to the aged Engineer of about 56 years, suffering from amputation of right arm. Considering the trend during the period 1984-1985 the Tribunal awarded lump sum compensation Rs.80,000/- at higher side. 8 F.A. No.432/95 11. On the basis of submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 - Insurance Company, the following point arises for my consideration : Whether the appellant - original claimant is entitled to the additional compensation over and above awarded by the Tribunal ? 12. My answer to the above point is in the negative. 13. In the present case, admittedly the appellant himself stated that he was earning Rs.15/- per day i.e. Rs.450/- per month. At the time of accident, he was 20 years old. He was doing labour work. It is common knowledge that daily wagers may get work throughout a month or may not. It depends upon the demand and supply. Even in the present case, in his evidence also at 9 F.A. No.432/95 Exhibit-55 not stated anything about his income except that he was getting Rs.15/- per day. Actually in S.T. bus, several other persons were travelling when the accident took place. In cross examination, the appellant admitted that no passenger in S.T. bus sustained injury. The appellant was sitting on widow side and his hand was at window. This itself shows that there must be some negligence on his part also. Apart from that the Tribunal at the time of awarding lump sum compensation of Rs. 80,000/- considered the previous two judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court. In the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala (supra), to a boy of 21 years old, the Court awarded Rs.50,000/- and in another case i.e. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (supra), Andhra Pradesh High Court awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the Engineer of 56 years, suffered from amputation of right arm. 10 F.A. No.432/95 14. Considering the well reasoned judgment delivered by the Tribunal, I do not find any substance in the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. sd/- [K. K. TATED, J.] sut/Dec10/fa432.95