Sanjay Mahadevappa Jawadekar vs Rajkumar Rikram Chaudhari and Another

S.V. Gangapurwala, J.—The appellant has filed the petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act [for short, ''said Act''] on account of the disability sustained by him in an accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad [for short, ''Tribunal''] partly allowed the same. The present Appeal is filed for. enhancement of the amount. Mr. Khedkar, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has proved that he was earning Rs. 4,000 [Rupees four thousand only] per month by working as a salesman in an optical shop. He was also earning Rs. 3,000 [Rupees three thousand only] per month by selling milk. Both the employers are examined. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. The learned Counsel further submits that an amount of Rs. 20,000 [Rupees twenty thousand only] was paid to the Doctor, but it was not considered at all only on the ground that it is not issued on receipt book or bill book, but the same is on letter head. According to the learned Counsel, the Doctor has deposed before the Tribunal and proved the said bill. According to the learned Counsel, very meagre amount is awarded towards pains and sufferings.

Mr. Upadhye, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the evidence of employer. According to the learned Counsel, there is no proof of income nor it is the case of permanent disability. The Doctor has very clearly said that the injuries were common injuries and with the passage of time, the patient would improve and there would not be any permanent disability. There is no loss of income as there is no permanent disability. The disability certificate does not inspire confidence. In the injury certificate, only two (2) fractures are stated. Even the Doctor''s statement is suspicious. According to the learned Counsel, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation. The learned Counsel further submits that as it is not a case of permanent disability, multiplier system has rightly not been applied.

I have gone through the impugned judgment and award and the record and proceedings.

No doubt, while mentioning the disability as 40%, the same is not clarified. The disability of 20% has been specified by the Doctor, but nothing beyond that. Considering the above, the disability can only be considered only up to 20%. Even if the exact earning is not proved, in that case, notional income of Rs. 3,000 [Rupees three thousand only] per month can be considered. Considering 20% disability and the multiplier and considering the age, the loss of earning would be Rs. 1,29,600 [Rupees one lac twenty-nine thousand six hundred only].

The Tribunal has not awarded any amount on account of the treatment taken by the petitioner. Naturally, the Doctor has given a statement on oath that rod has been inserted. Even assuming that there were two (2) fractures, the receipt of Rs. 20,000 [Rupees twenty thousand only] cannot be totally disbelieved. The same amount must have been paid by the appellant towards the treatment that has been undertaken. In light of that, I am inclined to grant Rs. 20,000 [Rupees twenty thousand only] as is referred in Exh. 55.

Towards pains and sufferings, on account of the disability, I would award appellant Rs. 25,000 [Rupees twenty five thousand only].

Considering the above, the Award passed by the Tribunal is modified. The claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 2,17,800 [Rupees two lacs seventeen thousand eight hundred only]. The respondents shall jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs. 2,17,800 [Rupees two lacs seventeen thousand eight hundred only] to the appellant with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization. The amount already paid shall be adjusted. The First Appeal is accordingly disposed of.