Vithal Jaidev Naik vs Shri Teodorio D''Souza and Others

N.A. Britto, J.—Heard Shri S.S. Kakodkar and Shri M.S. Joshi, the learned Counsel on behalf of the claimant and Respondent No. 6, respectively.

The claimant met with an accident on 7/04/1999. The claim petition was filed against two sets of Respondents. Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were the driver, the owner and the insurer of the scooter on which the claimant was going as a pillion rider. Respondents Nos. 1,2 & 3 were the driver, the owner and the insurer of the offending truck. The learned MACT has come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of Respondent No. 1 in driving the said truck and there is no dispute about it.

The dispute is as regards the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant. The learned MACT considered the income of the claimant on notional basis at Rs. 1,500/-per month. The learned MACT considered the age of the claimant as 56 years. The claimant had permanent disability of 8%. The learned MACT observed that even if the multiplier of 8 was used, the total compensation payable to the claimant would not exceed Rs. 20,000/-and as the claimant was already paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/-on the basis of no fault liability u/s 140 of the MV Act, the said compensation of Rs. 25,000/-would be just and proper. Nevertheless, the learned MACT awarded costs of the petition to be paid by Respondents Nos. 2 & 3.

Shri Kakodkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant submits that the learned MACT did not award any compensation to the claimant for permanent disability; towards medical expenses; towards attendant''s charges; loss of earnings as well as future loss of earnings. Learned Counsel submits that the claimant was an agriculturist who could have earned at least Rs. 100/-per day and the claimant''s income ought to have been considered at least Rs. 3,000/- per month and if appropriate multiplier of 8 was used for disability of 8%, the compensation could be worked out to Rs. 31,680/-. Applying the same formula, learned Counsel submits that the claimant ought to have been granted another sum of Rs. 10,559/-towards loss of future prospects. In fact, the learned MACT did consider awarding Rs. 2,000/-towards medical expenses though the bills produced by the claimant were of a lesser value.

On the other hand, Shri Joshi, learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 3 submits that no fault can be found with the compensation estimated by the learned trial Court but concedes that the claimant was admitted in the hospital for 23 days and the learned MACT has not awarded any compensation towards attendant''s charges when the claimant was attended by his wife and the claimant has given estimate of expenditure on that count as Rs. 100/-per day. Learned Counsel further submits that the claimant had produced no evidence of transportation and that if the claimant was working as an agriculturist, the claimant had produced no evidence.

That the claimant was working as an agriculturist is a fact which was stated by him and corroborated by his witness Shri Raghunath Sawant. Although the claimant had otherwise made tall claims as regards his income, in my view, considering the year in which the accident had taken place, the income of the claimant as an agriculturist could have been considered by the learned MACT at least as Rs. 100/-per day and if that is so considered the amount payable to the claimant towards permanent disability works out to Rs. 31,680/-. The claimant was in GMC for 23 days. It must have certainly taken the claimant 4 to 8 weeks to get back to his normal work. The claimant therefore can be awarded Rs. 6,000/-by way of loss of income. Another sum of Rs. 2,000/-can be awarded to the claimant towards medical expenses. Another sum of Rs. 2,000/-can be awarded to the claimant by way of travel expenses as the claimant was required to come to GMC and had stated in his evidence that he had come to GMC four times and had paid Rs. 500/-per trip. Likewise, the claimant needs to be awarded a sum of Rs. 2,300/-towards attendant''s charges. The wife of the claimant attended on him while he was in the hospital for 23 days. Another sum of Rs. 5,000/-could be awarded to the claimant towards pain and suffering. Thus a sum of Rs. 48,980/-can be awarded to the claimant by way of just compensation on account of the injuries suffered by the claimant. The medical evidence does not support the claim for future loss of income. The sum of Rs. 25,000/-shall be deducted. The balance amount to be paid to the claimant with interest @ 6% from the date of the petition. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 shall also pay to the claimant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of costs.

In view of the above, the appeal succeeds. The impugned award is hereby modified and the claimant is held entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 23,980/-with costs of this appeal of Rs. 5,000/-