Yogesh Mehta vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

S.S. Jha, J.—This appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation.

Finding about the rash and negligent driving and the Accident caused by the vehicle owned by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and driven by respondent No. 3 is not under challenge. Only challenge is regarding quantum of compensation.

Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that in the Accident deceased has suffered injury in the right leg, which resulted into fracture of tibia and fibula bone. Three-inch piece of bone was thrown out from the body at the time of Accident and fibula bone was fractured at number of places. Claimant was operated at Gwalior and thereafter he was further operated at Ahmedabad. However, the claimant admitted in the Court that his one leg is shorten by two inches, but he can walk without the aid of crutches. Claims Tribunal has considered the evidence. Claimant has claimed that his income is Rs. 5,000/- per month and he was unable to work for a period of one and half years. He has kept an attendant at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month for a period of one and half years and he was required to take special diet of Rs. 100/- per day. He has spent Rs. 25,000/- on medicines. Tribunal after considering the evidence on record held that income of deceased at the time of Accident was Rs. 2,000/- per month and he was unable to earn anything for a period of six months and his loss of income was Rs. 12,000/- and considering the operations of the appellant an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards treatment has been awarded to him. However, finding is recorded that claimant has failed to prove that he has kept an attendant and he was paying him Rs. 300/- per month. As regards special diet Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the claimant has spent Rs. 5,000/- only towards special diet. General damages for pain and suffering for life were assessed at Rs. 35,000/- and total compensation of Rs. 67,000/- has been awarded.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation determined is too low and prayed for enhancement of compensation.

Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that compensation is just and sufficient. Amount of Rs. 1,07,000/- has been paid to claimant after passing of the award. Entire sum has been paid with interest to the claimant and nothing is required to be paid to the claimant.

Considering the arguments and on perusal of record we uphold the finding of the Claims Tribunal that income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- per month and finding of Tribunal that appellant was confined to bed for six months is also affirmed and the loss of income of Rs. 12,000/- awarded by Claims Tribunal is affirmed.

It is not disputed that leg of appellant is shorten by two inches. Thus, he has suffered disability throughout his life and he will be performing his duties by limping and may be getting some inconvenience. Thus, his disability is determined at 20%. Income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- and considering his 20% disability loss of income is determined at Rs. 4,800/- per annum. At the time of Accident claimant was 24 years of age. Considering his young age we apply multiplier of 15 to the is of income of Rs. 4,800/- p.a. and the compensation is determined at Rs. 72,000/-. It may be mentioned that the application for compensation was under the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as the Accident took place in the year 1987. Thus, compensation towards permanent disability is determined at Rs. 72,000/- plus Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of income for a period of six months, Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenditure as determined by the Claims Tribunal and Rs. 5,000/- for special diet. Compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,04,000/-. Claimant will also be entitled for interest @ 6% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of award i.e., 4.1.1996. Since delay was caused by the claimant in the Claims Tribunal in deciding the application and has not led evidence for a period of four years as observed by the Claims Tribunal, we award interest from the date of award.

Compensation already paid by the respondents shall be adjusted and after adjustment remaining amount be paid to the claimant. Appeal succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.