1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.204 OF 1992 Shankar Damanna Patil Age : 41 years R/o.Mandedurg, Taluka Chandgad, ..Appellant District Kolhapur V/s. 1. Bhoopal Jinnappa Rattu R/o.Hindwadi, Belgaum-217 2. Maruti Vishram Bhandare R/o.House No.1172, Shivaji Road, ..Respondents Kolhapur 3. The New India Assurance Company Limited Khande Bazar, Belgaum Mr.Rajesh Parab with Mr.D.S.Sawant, advocate, for appellant Mr.Deelip Mahadik, advocate, for the respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 27TH MARCH, 2008 JUDGMENT 2 . The submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. The appellant is the claimant in a Claim Petition U/s.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. On 4th January, 1984 when the appellant was riding his bicyle and was proceeding to Chandgad by Belgaum Vengurla road, a truck owned by the first respondent and driven by the second respondent came in a high speed from the opposite direction and gave a dash to the appellant. It is alleged that the truck came on it's wrong side and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver i.e.the second respondent. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck on the part of the second respondent. The Tribunal accepted the case made out by the appellant that he suffered 50% permanent disability on the account of the injuries sustained in the accident. The claim of the appellant was in the sum of Rs.70,000/-. The Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.32,500/- excluding Rs.7,500/- paid U/s.92-A of the said Act, 1939. 3 2. The learned advocate for the appellant has taken me through the Pleadings and notes of evidence as well as documentary evidence on record. His submission is that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards costs of Medicines. He submitted that the learned member of the Tribunal has also not granted compensation on account of loss of income of Rs.10,000/- per year claimed by the appellant in as much as the appellant was getting the said amount by cultivating the land of his brother-in-law. He submitted that the loss of supervisory charges of Rs.300/- per month taken by the Tribunal is extremely on the lower side. He submitted that the compensation awarded on account of pain and sufferings of Rs.10,000/- is on the lower side considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant. The learned counsel for the third respondent (insurer of the truck) submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and no interference is called for. He submitted that no evidence has been adduced as regards income allegedly received by the appellant by cultivating land of his brother-in-law. He submitted that in fact there is no pecuniary loss to the appellant. 4 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. There is no challenge by the respondents to the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of negligence and the entitlement of the appellant to receive compensation. As far as the injuries sustained by the appellant are concerned, he has examined Dr.Hanmantray Balappa Patil, Assistant Surgeon, District Civil Hospital at Belgaum. In his evidence, the Injury Certificate at Exh.29 has been proved. He has also produced on record the original case papers. The Disability Certificate issued by him at Exh.32 has also been proved. The Disability Certificate records that the appellant has suffered 50% permanent disability. The disabilities noted in the Certificate are as under :- (i) Restricted movements of right shoulder (ii) Stiff right elbow (iii) Stiff right wrist 4. In the cross examination Dr.Hanmantray Balappa Patil admitted that 50% permanent disability was only of right upper limb. 5 It is revealed from the case papers that the appellant was admitted in the hospital on 4th January, 1984 and was discharged on 1st March, 1984. The appellant has underwent four surgeries during the said span. Dr. Patil has deposed to the said facts. In so far as the hospitalisation for a period of about two months and undergoing surgeries is concerned, there is no challenge in the cross examination of Dr.Patil. Therefore, in my opinion, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- granted on account of pain and suffering is extremely on the lower side. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the said amount has to be Rs.25,000/-. It must be remembered that we are dealing with the accident of the year 1984. In my opinion, the said amount ought to have been fixed at Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-. 5. Turning to the alleged expenses incurred by the appellant, it must be noted that the appellant has not claimed any compensation on account of expenses incurred on hospitalisation. It is an admitted position that for hospitalisation, he was not required to pay any amount. In the examination-in-chief he has come out with the case 6 that he was required to spend a sum of Rs.5000/- for purchasing medicines. A suggestion was given in the cross examination that the case that he was required to spend Rs.5000/- on medicines was false. The said suggestion has been denied by the appellant. It must be stated here that the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he incurred any expenses on medicines. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in not granting any compensation on the said count. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.2000/- on account of expenses of attendant. The appellant had claimed a sum of Rs.3000/- for special diet. As pointed out earlier he was in a hospital for a period of about two months and during the said period of two months, the appellant underwent to four surgeries. Therefore, a reasonable amount of Rs.1000/- ought to have been granted for the expenses on account of special diet. The appellant is a resident of Mandedurg, Taluka Chandgad, District Kolhapur. He was hospitalised at District Hospital at Belgaum. No conveyance expenses have been granted by the Tribunal. Moreover, the expenses incurred by the appellant's son and wife on conveyance have not been taken into consideration. In my view a sum of 7 Rs.4000/- on account of expenses incurred by appellant's wife and son ought to have been granted. 6. Insofar as loss of income is concerned, there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was cultivating the land of his brother-in-law except the bald statement made by the appellant. As far as loss of income from his own agricultural land is concerned, it is an admitted position that the appellant has major sons who were doing necessary work on the agricultural lands. Therefore, loss of supervisory charges has been considered by the Tribunal quantified at Rs.300/- per month. After taking into consideration the supervisory charges at Rs.300/- per month, the Tribunal has made further deduction by 50%. The Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 15. 7. Taking overall view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced by an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The interest on the enhanced amount will be payable at 9% p.a as the interest rates have considerably gone down after the filing of the Appeal. 8 8. Hence, I pass the following order. (i) The appeal is partly allowed. In addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the respondents will pay a further amount of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant with interest thereon at 9% p.a. from 29th June, 1984 till realisation of the amount. The appellant will be entitled to proportionate costs of the Claim Petition as well as this appeal on the said amount of Rs.10,000/-. (ii) Time of four months is granted to the respondent No.3 to comply with the modified award. (A.S.OKA, J.)