1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.7 OF 1995 Rajendra Appasaheb Mithari Appellant versus 1. M.K.Abhobukar s/o Moideen Kunhi, Rahmat Manzil, Kamyadke, P.O.Chengale, Kasargod. 2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Divisional Office Seema Building, 2nd and 3rd floors, P.B.No.18, Government Hospital Road, Kasargod, Calicat. 3. General Manager, MSRTC, Belasis Road, Mumbai. 4. Interal Insurance Fund, C/o.Secretary, MSRT Vahatukbhavan, Dr.Anandrao Nair Road, Fort, Mumbai. Respondents Mr.D.S.Sawant, Advocate for appellant. Mr.N.V.Gangal, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 05th December 2009 JUDGEMENT :- 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The appellant is the original claimant in a claim petition filed under section 110(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The appellant sustained injuries as a result of the accident involving motor vehicle. The first and second respondents 2 (owner and insurer of the truck respectively) were held liable to pay the compensation. The appellant claimed total compensation of Rs.20,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.4,000/- was claimed on account of medical expenditure, a sum of Rs.3,000/- on account of pain and agony, a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of loss of business for three months and balance amount of Rs.8,000/- on account of disability, impairment of health etc.. By the impugned judgement and award the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 2,096/- on account of medical expenditure, Rs.3,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.1,000/- for loss of business. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even going by the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the appellant was hospitalised for ten days. It is submitted that a person who is injured in an accident is not expected to meticulously maintain all the bills and vouchers of the medical bills of the medicines purchased by him. He submitted that the Tribunal has allowed the claim to the extent only which bills were produced. He submitted that there was evidence on record to show that the appellant was carrying on business. He submitted that a sum of Rs.5,000/- ought to have been awarded on account of loss of business. 3. Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that admittedly there was no evidence on record to show that the income of the appellant was Rs.1,500/- p.m.. He submitted that the appellant must have engaged helping hands and, therefore, the plea of loss of income for three months was not established. He submitted that the disability is not proved and, therefore, the compensation awarded is reasonable and no interference is called for. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Dr.Avinash Shirpurkar, a Dental Surgeon was examined. As far as injury suffered by him, he deposed thus :- "As such I had examined Rajendra Mithari. On my 3 examining Rajendra Mithari I had found the following injuries :- 1. He had a injury on symphysis which was sutured on - Clinical examination - I suspected a fracture in symphysis and subcontylar fracture which was later on confirmed by x- ray." I had operated on him. The procedure is known as interdental wiring. Dr.Ganpule assisted me, in the said treatment, given to Rajendra. The wiring was kept for six weeks. After six weeks the wiring was removed. The patient was admitted about a week 10 days as indoor patient. Mr.Mithari paid me the charges for the treatment." As far as the nature of injuries, the nature of treatment and the extent of hospitalisation is concerned, there is no cross examination. As far as business is concerned the appellant has placed on record at Exhibit-64 a certificate under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act issued by Kolhapur Municipal Council in his name for the period starting from 4th September 1981. The said license was in force and was renewed in the form of another license at Exhibit-65. The license at Exhibit-64 shows that the appellant was running business of manufacturing Caomphore tablets. He has stated that his monthly income was Rs.1,500/-. Considering the documents at Exhibits-64 and 65 it appears that the appellant was carrying on business at least from September 1981. The strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the Tribunal established under the said Act of 1939. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to discard the case of the appellant that he was earning Rs.1,500/- p.m.. The Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.7,000/-. Considering the hospitalisation for ten days and nature of injuries sustained, the claim of Rs.5,000/- made by the appellant on account of loss of income was reasonable. Hence as far as this claim is concerned, enhancement to the extent of Rs.4,000/- 4 will have to be granted. As far as claim for expenses on medical treatment is concerned, a sum of Rs.4,000/- was claimed out of which a sum of Rs.2,096/- have been granted. The appellant suffered from fracture of jaw and he was hospitalised for ten days. No amount has been granted to the appellant for special diet, conveyance expenses etc.. Therefore, the claim of Rs.4,000/- on account of expenses incurred on medicines ought to have been fully allowed. Thus, the appellant is entitled to further enhancement of Rs.5,904/- which figure can be rounded off to Rs.6,000/-. On this additional amount, interest will have to be awarded @ 7.5% p.a.. 5. Hence, I pass following order :- (A) In addition to the compensation awarded under the impugned judgement and award, the first, second, fourth and fifth opponents to the claim petition shall jointly and severally pay the additional compensation of Rs.6,000/- (Rs.Six thousand only) together with interest thereon @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit of the amount with the Tribunal; (B) Time of four months is granted to the concerned respondents to deposit the compensation amount with the Tribunal; (C) The appeal is partly allowed in above terms. (A.S.OKA, J.) Kondvilkar