N.K. Mody, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 29.3.2004 passed by Eleventh Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 298 of 2001. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,87,500 with interest to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury which he sustained in an accident. According to the claimant, i.e., appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, needs to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and, if so, to what extent?
2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident had occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation, etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of the claimant by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimant's favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross-appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was aged 35 years and was driver of heavy motor vehicle at the time of accident, which took place on 18.5.2000. It is submitted that appellant sustained grievous injuries in right leg. It is submitted that appellant was hospitalised from 18.5.2000 to 6.6.2000 at Rajeev Gandhi Hospital, Bangalore and thereafter appellant was hospitalised from 11.6.2000 to 28.9.2000 in Verma Union Hospital at Indore. It is submitted that appellant was operated 7-8 times and ultimately the right leg of the appellant was amputated above knee. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,87,401, which was rounded up as Rs. 3,87,500, break-up of which is as under:
Towards medical expenses Rs. 1,41,401Towards permanent disability Rs. 2,16,000Towards pain and suffering Rs. 5,000Towards loss of income Rs. 25,000
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there was permanent disability up to the extent of 75 per cent and the income of the appellant was assessed at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per month for which 75 per cent amount was awarded to the appellant after applying multiplier of 16. It is submitted that the income of the appellant was Rs. 4,000 per month as salary. To prove this fact appellant has examined Gangaram, cleaner, who was working with the appellant. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata 1976 ACJ 141 (SC), wherein a carpenter while doing work in the course of employment fell down and sustained injuries as a result his left arm above the elbow was amputated, Hon'ble Apex Court held that disablement is total and not partial as the work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only.
5. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the case of Shankarappa Kubbanna Kattimani v. Karnataka State Road Trans. Corporation 2007 ACJ 2279 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of amputation of one arm held that injured was a coolie doing manual labour for earning his livelihood and amputation of one arm would result in total disability.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that on some of the heads amount awarded is on lower side and on number of heads no amount has been awarded.
7. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 5 submits that the owner for whom appellant was working was not examined by the appellant. It is submitted that the investigator Atul Jaiswal was examined by the respondent, who has stated that the respondent No. 1 has informed that the salary which is being paid to the appellant is Rs. 1,500 per month. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded by learned Tribunal is just and proper and no further enhancement can be made.
8. I have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimant on the issue of injuries sustained by appellant. After taking into consideration all the evidence on record it appears that on account of injuries appellant has suffered a lot. The right leg of the appellant has been amputated above knee. So far as income of the appellant is concerned, it appears that the income assessed by the learned Tribunal is on lower side, which ought to have been assessed at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month as the accident is of the year 2000 and the appellant was driver of heavy motor vehicle. So far as assessment of compensation on account of permanent disability on the basis of 100 per cent loss of income is concerned, the appellant has not approached under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, where while computing the loss of earning capacity, half of the salary is being taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of the case, where appellant has approached this Court under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the loss of income/permanent disability at the rate of 75 per cent. However, on some of the heads amount awarded by learned Tribunal is on lower side. In my opinion it will be proper to enhance the compensation. The appellant is entitled for the following amount:
Towards medical expenses Rs. 1,41,401Towards permanent disability Rs. 3,00,000Towards pain and suffering Rs. 10,000Towards loss of income Rs. 25,000Towards transport expenses Rs. 10,000Towards expensesincurred on attendants Rs. 10,000Towards special diet Rs. 5,000-------------Total Rs. 5,01,401-------------
9. Thus, the appellant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 5,01,401 instead of Rs. 3,87,000 by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident. The enhanced amount of Rs. 1,14,401 shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the insurance company with the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal is directed to invest 80 per cent of the said amount on long-term fixed deposit in the name of appellant in the nearest nationalised bank, in the area where the appellant is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance and interest on the said amount will be paid on monthly basis directly to the appellant. However, on an application by the appellant this condition could be modified by the learned Tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant. So far as liability is concerned, the findings of learned Tribunal relating to the liabilities shall remained unaltered.
10. With the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.