Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Rasiklal Jadavji Patel And Anr. on 23 December, 1985
Equivalent citations: 1(1986)ACC579
JUDGMENT D.C. Gheewala, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar in Claim Petition No. 59 of 1976. Respondent No. 1 Rasiklal, a boy aged about 20 years was travelling by a truck on 8-4-1976, at about 4.00 p m. he got down from the truck and while be was standing by the side of the truck, one ST Bus bound for Jamnagar was passing at an excessive speed and it knocked him down. He received injuries, he was removed to the Hospital, he was treated for an inordinately long period and as a result of the injuries sustained he suffered from permanent partial disability. He, therefore, claimed Rs. 34,000/- by way of compensation.
2. The claim was resisted by the ST Corporation on the ground that no ST bus was involved in the accident and the claim for an amount of Rs. 34,000/- was grossly exaggerated.
3. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the ST bus was involved in the accident that a bus was being driven negligently and that the claimant bad sustained serious injuries. Under the circumstances, the tribunal came to the conclusion that Rs. 17,000/- would be awardable to the claimant. Being aggrieved by the said order the ST Corporation has preferred the present appeal and being aggrieved by the paucity of the amount of compensation the claimant has filed cross-objections claiming Rs. 10,000/- more.
4. Mr. Arun K. Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant corporation, took us through the judgment and evidence of the material witnesses and Mr. Shah urged that the fact of the ST Bus being involved in the accident has not been proved by any cogent evidence. Witness Kantibhai who had taken the injured to the Hospital has been studiously avoided and has not been examined. Mr. Shah also urged that regarding the quantum also it appears that the Tribunal has erred in arriving at a conclusion that the applicant has suffered from any permanent disability. Referring to the evidence of Dr. Rameshchandra D. Shah, Mr. Shah urged that the expert is not certain as to whether the ankle bone fracture is likely to result in any gross disability or that physical condition of the claimant is irretrievably impaired.
5. Having gone through the evidence, we find that regarding the ST bus being involved, there is sufficient evidence on the record and the Tribunal's finding on that point is unassailable. The incident took place on 8th, information was received by the Police Station on the same day, next day pancbnama was made and on 10th a complaint was filed by the Police Officer, wherein not only it has been mentioned that it was an ST Bus which was involved in the accident but even the number of the ST Bus is mentioned. Naturally in case of a hit by the driver the vehicle number might not be readily available. It was only after the Investigating Officer went to Jamnagar and made investigation that he came to know about the number. It is true that the claimant and his witnesses have slightly exaggerated inasmuch as they have come out with a case that they had noted the number. Diary in which the number was noted has not been produceed. However, it has been established that the ST Bus belonging to the appellant corporation was being driven rashly and negligently by the corporation employee and thus bus was involved in the accident. On this point, Mr. Shah's contention, therefore, requires only to be stated for being rejected.
6. Next we come to the question of the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal had assessed average income of the claimant at Rs. 250/- p.m. Under the circumstances, we feel that even that assessment was on the conservative side, to may also be noted that the claimant had sustained fracture of rib as well as fracture of navigulor bone and fracture of mandible. For pain, shock and suffering only Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded. We feel that in case of numerous fractures, this amount awarded for pain, shock and suffering appears to be ridiculously low. As against that, we feel that if at an age of 20, the claimant's income was at Rs. 250/- p.m. the Tribunal had grossly erred in not taking into consideration his future prospects. The disability, that he had suffered, therefore, should have to be evaluated in terms of future loss of income or at least curtailment of his earning capacity on account of the physical disability that has become a permanent feature with him. His mandible inspite of the best efforts on the part of competent surgeons could not be perfectly repaired and as per the medical testimony that difficulty is Irretrievable and irreversible. We, therefore, feel that on the score of pain, shock and suffering an amount of Rs. 2,500/- more requires to be awarded.
7. The Tribunal has computed loss of earning capacity only at Rs. 50/-per month, we feel that looking to the social set back on account of the applicant having been reduced to the position of a less presentable man, his acceptability to the customers would be impaired and as such loss of income per month taking into consideration the fact of his future prospects could not have been assessed at anything less than Rs. 75/- per month. That would come to Rs. 900/- per annum and taking 15 years multiplier that the tribunal has adopted on that score also the applicant would be entitled to get Rs. 13,500/- instead of Rs. 9,000/-. Under the circumstances, the applicant would be entitled to get Rs. 7,000/- more, that is, in all an amount of Rs. 24,000/- instead of Rs. 17,000/- as determined by the Tribunal. The cross-objections, therefore, shall have to be allowed to the above extent. The appeal of the ST Corporation is dismissed with costs. The cross-objections are partly allowed to the extent indicated above with proportionate costs. Rest of the award of the Tribunal is left undisturbed. Needless to add that the additional amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of realisation.