Rajeev Agarwal vs Rampal Yadav and Others

S. Samvatsar, J.—This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging award e dated 5th February, 2000 passed by 9th Addl. Member Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 1/96 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 40,200 to the claimant towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him.

This appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation. Brief facts of the f case are that on 5th June, 1995 the applicant was going on his bicycle. When he reached near the Shinde Ki Chhawni a truck bearing registration No. MIH 7536, which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed against him which has resulted into injuries on his left hand. Claims Tribunal in para 10 of its judgment has relied on the statement of Dr. Gaikwad, AW 3 who was the treating doctor and has come to the conclusion that there was a fracture in third metacarpel bone of the claimant due to which his fingers of the left hand were stiffed and could not be moulded and on the basis of said finding awarded Rs. 20,000 towards loss of earning capacity, Rs. 2,000 towards loss of income for one and half months, Rs. 5,000 towards pain and suffering, Rs. 12,700 towards medical expenses and Rs. 500 towards special diet and has thus awarded in all an amount of Rs. 40,200.

Contention raised by the Counsel for the appellant is that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is too low considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant. To prove the said injuries and the evidence appellant has examined himself as AW 1. While recording his statement in para 4 of his statement Court has observed that the left hand of the claimant can be moulded from elbow but his fingers are stiff and there is a skin grafting on his hand. Claimant has examined another witness A.A. Khan who is the Record Keeper of the hospital and Dr. J.B. Gaikwad who is Head of the Department of Orthopaedics and has treated the claimant. In para 1 of his statement this witness has stated that on 5th June, 1995 the claimant was admitted to the hospital and there was a fracture in the third metacarpel bone. His skin from the elbow was completely torned and the flesh was coming out of the injury. He has stated in para 2 that he has performed his operation on 20th June, 1995. Second operation was performed on 30th June, 1995 and the skin grafting was done by taking skin from his thigh. Claimant was discharged from the hospital on 10th July, 1995. He has stated that the fingers of the claimant were jammed and there is no movement in his fingers. He has assessed his disablement to 50% and has given k certificate to that affect which is Ext. P-47.

Thus, from the statements of this doctor it is clear that the present appellant claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50%. He was aged 14 years at the time of incident. Considering this fact the compensation has to be assessed on the basis of notional income because a boy of 14 years is not expected to do any work for earning his livelihood. Moreover, there is no positive evidence on record to show that the appellant was working member or had any income. Considering this fact his yearly income can be assessed to Rs. 15,000 which is his notional income and as there is 50% disability, for assessment purpose the income is reduced to Rs. 7,500 and a multiplier of 15 is applicable at the age of 14 years. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 1,12,500. Court below has awarded an amount of Rs. 12,700 towards medical expenses and Rs. 500 towards special diet.

Considering the above facts I find that the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,25,000 (Rupees one lac twenty five thousand only). As there is no definite evidence about the income of the appellant to the effect that he was earning member, he is not entitled to any compensation towards loss of income. Considering all these facts I allow this appeal in part and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 40,200 to Rs. 1,25,000. Appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the appeal.