Sh. Anuj sharma vs Ahsanul Haq and Others

M.L. Mehta, J.—The challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 3rd October, 2005 of the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (''the Tribunal'' for short) which came to be passed in the claim petition No. 88 of 2004 filed by the Appellant for seeking compensation on account of injuries which were sustained by him in the road accident which took place on 29th October, 2003 when he was driving motor cycle No. DL-4SP-0077 and was hit by a TATA 407 bearing registration No. DL-1LB-7082 being driven by Respondent No. 1, Ahsanul Haq, at very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The said vehicle was stated to be owned by Respondent No. 2, Rahis Ahmed, and insured with Respondent No. 3. the New India Insurance Company Limited. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 14,36,880/- which was made up of reimbursement of medical expenses Rs. 4,50,000/-, pain and suffering Rs. 75,000/-, loss of salary/leave Rs. 2,02,400/-, loss of earning capacity Rs. 5,19,480/-, permanent disability Rs. 1,00,000/- special diet/conveyance Rs. 40,000/- and loss of marriage prospects Rs. 50,000/-.

The impugned award is assailed by the Appellant alleging the compensation to be on lower side. The Appellant has prayed for enhancement of compensation on different counts. The main grievance of the Appellant is that though he suffered disability to the extent of 60 per cent which lowered his earning capacity and prospects of future earning as well as marriage, but the learned Tribunal granted compensation on lower side under these heads.

There is no dispute that after the accident the Appellant was taken to hospital where he remained admitted from 25th October 2003 to 8th December, 2003. He remained under intensive medical treatment in the hospital and had to undergo tracheotomy and was subjected to heavy medication involving several intravenous procedures.

The learned Tribunal has discussed the injuries as well as the medical treatment. The Appellant had submitted medical bill of Rs. 3,75,736/- of the hospital and also some bills of purchase of medicines totalling about Rs. 5,500/-, besides two other bills of physiotherapy of Rs. 9,000/- each. Though the total of all these bills was about Rs. 4,27,000/-, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- towards the medical expenses which appears to be the just and reasonable approach adopted by the Tribunal.

Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant coupled with the medical treatment, as noted above, the learned Tribunal was also right in arriving at a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- towards pain and sufferings.

As per the evidence on record, the Appellant was getting gross annual salary of Rs. 3,29,280/- from his private job with a company. After making reasonable deductions towards transportation, lunch coupons, PF etc., the monthly income of the Appellant was assessed as Rs. 24,050/-. Since the Appellant was in a private job, the Tribunal has rightly taken this Rs. 24,050/- to be actual monthly income of the Appellant. Since he was on leave for 8 months, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,02,400/- on account of loss of salary for eight months. Though, the Appellant could not produce permanent disability certificate from any government hospital, the Tribunal scanned through the evidence on record and recorded a finding of fact that even if the disability was taken to be 60%, the functional disability which would affect the earning capacity of the Appellant was not to be more than 10%. Keeping in view the age of the Appellant as 25 years, he rightly applied the multiplier of 18 and thus arrived at a figure of Rs. 5,19,480/- as the loss of earning capacity of the Appellant due to functional disability of 10%. This was arrived at after discussing the nature of job of the Appellant, his income, the permissible deductions and also future prospects and by applying appropriate multiplier of 18. I do not see any infirmity or illegality in this method applied by the Tribunal in arriving at this figure of Rs. 5,19,480/-. In addition to this, the learned Tribunal also awarded compensation to the Appellant towards discomforts of permanent disability as Rs. 1,00,000/-. Compensation of Rs. 20,000/- each towards conveyance and special diet also appears to be just and reasonable in the given facts and circumstances of this case.

Though, there was no evidence on record regarding any loss of sexual prowess of the Appellant due to the injury sustained by him, the Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects, if any. I do not see any infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal in assessing the compensation on any of the counts and the total compensation awarded to the Appellant.

There is no reason to interfere with the impugned award. The appeal merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.