Hari Krishan vs Kamla Devi and Another

Surjit Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record.

Appellant sustained injuries in a vehicular accident, which resulted in permanent disability, to the extent of 45%, in respect of one of the lower limbs. He applied for award of compensation, under the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 36,200/-, together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, by way of compensation.

Appellant''s grievance is that compensation, on account of future loss of earning and pain and suffering, is on the lower side. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/-, on account of future loss of earnings, plus Rs. 50,000/-, on account of pain and suffering.

Appellant is an agriculturist. His income has been assessed at Rs. 4,000/- per month. His incapacity to earn, on account of permanent disability of 45% due to one of the lower limbs, has been assessed at 25%.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant being an agriculturist, loss of capacity to earn should have been taken to be equal to the extent of permanent disability. Submission is without merit. 45% permanent disability is only in relation to one of the two lower limbs. There does not seem to be any error on the part of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in working out the incapacity to earn, on account of the aforesaid permanent disability.

A sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded, on account of pain and suffering. This amount of compensation is in addition to a sum of Rs. 60,000/-, on account of discomfort and enjoyment of life. A sum of Rs. 47,400/- has been awarded, on account of transportation, in addition to medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 64,800/-. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- has been awarded, on account of attendant''s charges and another sum of Rs. 30,000/-, on account of special diet. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded, on account of loss of income during treatment, which comes to about one year''s total income of the appellant.

In view of the abovestated position, I do not think the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires further enhancement. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.