P.K. Deb, J.
1. The award granted in Claim Case No. 104/90 by judgment dated 9.3.1994 by the 1st Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh has been assailed in this appeal by the Insurance Company as mentioned above.
2. The claimant, Kedar Prasad yadav was a Khalashi-cum-spare driver in the Mini bus Tata-407 No. BR-13(1) 2223 under the joint owners, O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. on 3.1.1990 at about 5 A.M. the said vehicle was coming from Kodarama Railway Station to Hazaribagh and the claimant was travelling in the said bus in course of his employment. It is alleged that the vehicle was running in a very high and excessive speed and due to rash and negligent driving, when the vehicle reached near Homeguard training camp, few miles north of Hazaribagh, it went to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against a tree as a result of which the driver and the several passengers of the bus died at the spot and some in hospital and the claimant also received severe injuries on his person. It has further been claimed that the claimant was treated in hospital till 15.8.1990 and he has become out of his service. Due to the permanent disability to the extent of 50 per cent because of the injuries caused on his person, his right hand has become inoperative due to non functioning of some nerves, veins and muscles which were crushed due to the injuries caused on his person. The claimant on recovery to some extent filed the claim case and the damages were claimed in the following manner:
Pecuniary damages i.e. special damage:
(I) Cost of Medical
treatment : Rs. 6,000/-
(ii) Pst cost of attendance : Rs. 3.000/-
(iii) Special diet and increased
living expenses : Rs. 3,000/-
(iv) Transport cost to and
from Hospital, Home and doctor : Rs. 2,000/-
(v) Loss of earning upto
31st August, 1990 @ Rs. 2,000/- : Rs. 16,000/-
(vi) Further pecuniary loss
(since the doctor has advised the
claimant to give rest to hands and
body for another one year) : Rs. 24,000/-(i) Compensatory physical pain
and suffering : Rs. 1,00,000/-
(ii) Compensation for meantal
shock and depression :Rs. 25,000/-
(iii) Loss of future earning
capacity 50% for another ten year : Rs. 1,20,000/-
3. It has further been claimed that although the claimant has a driving licence but due to disability on his right arm, he is unable to get a job of a driver or any other work as by the right hand he is unable to carry any work.
4. the owners of the vehicle filed joint written statement stating that at the time of accident, the vehicle was duly insured under comprehensive policy No. 6304358/90 and the certificate of insurance was filed in the case. The Insurance company also filed written statement being O.P. No. 3 in the case and pointed out that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as the vehicle was driven violating the policy condition and it has further been alleged that the compensation claimed was excessive and exorbitant.
5. During the course of trial of the case, from the claimant's side two witnesses have been examined including the claimant himself and on behalf of the Insurance Company, one witness was examined. 'After scrutinising the evidence on record, the learned court below came to the finding that the claimant is entitled to get compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 58,000/-towards compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. It was further ordered that the compensation with interest should be paid within 30 days from the date of award and if the same is not paid within the period lentioned then the claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 18 persent per annum from the date of filing of this case till the realisation.
6. Mr. P.C. Roy, appearing for and on behalf of the appellant although raised various points in the memo of appeal, did not press any other point except the quantum of compensation. According to him, the compensation awarded is against all norms as the same was done on lump sum basis without ascertaining the percentage of disablement of the claimant not there was any criteria being given in the award/judgment regarding determination of the compensation of Rs. 58,000/- which according to him is highly exorbitant. He has also raised objection towards the enhanced rate of interest of 18 per cent as ordered by the Court.
On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Dev, appearing for and on behalf of the claimant-Respondent No. 1 submitted that although cross objection Has not been filed, but the Court must see that the compensation awarded is too low in. relation to the damage caused to the physique and the deprivation of income of the claimant in future.
7. Mr. Roy in course of his argument regarding excessive and exorbitant quantum of compensation has referred to a judgment of Madhya Pradesh as reported in 1990 A.C.J. page-383 (Bakulesh and
Ors. v Girdharilal), wherein Rs. 40,000/- was awarded as compensation when there was permanent disability of 40 per cent as the leg of the claimant was shortened by 1-3/4'. He has also referred to another judgment of the same Court as reported in 1987 A.CJ. 437 (Union of India through Defence Ministry v. Yashwant Singh) wherein it was held that for lump sum compensation assessed, five per cent deduction should always be made. On interest point, he has referred to : AIR1986SC1191 Smt. Chameli Wati and Anr. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
8. In the award portion of the impugned judgment, the compensation was assessed on lump sum basis at Rs. 50,000/- and 6,000/- was further awarded towards the expenses of treatment and Rs. 2,000/- further was awarded towards, transport cost, to and from hospital and home and doctor's fee, making a total of Rs. 58,000/-. So it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal did not apply his judicial mind in assessing/determining the compensation. The claim of the claimant is that his disability was to the extent of 50 per cent. To that extent, the doctor, A. W. 2 has been examined and he had also stated that there is permanent disability towards the right hand of the claimant. When the right hand of a person becomes inoperative and that too a technical man like that of a driver, his permanent disablement can be imagined the fact of it. So, I do not find that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the lump sum amount of Rs. 58,000/- towards the damage caused to the physique of the claimant. The expenditure of treatment was definitely high when the claimant was in the hospital for about long six months and afterwards also he was being treated outside.
9. In the reported Ruling of the Madya Pradesh High Court (supra), the assessment was made in the year 1990, when there was disablement in the leg of 1-3/4' on shortening of it. But, here the right arm of the claimant has been totally damaged.
Thus, I find that the compensation awarded is rather in the lower side and not an exorbitant one. The claimant has become totally deprived of his normal avocation and also towards earning rather he has become burden to the family itself.
10. Thus, I find that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment and award except the interest portion of 18 per cent annum as per the impugned award.
The claimant shall get interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum throughout and it seems that the award has not yet been satisfied and if the award is not satisfied with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum within 60 days, from the date then the claimant shall be, entitled to interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of expiry of 60 days on the actual amount of award till the date of realisation. However, the statutory amount deposited in this Court in filing of this appeal, may be paid forthwith to the claimant and this amount shall be deducted from the awarded amount with interest and also deduction should be regarding calculation of interest with respect to the date of deposit.
11. The appeal is thus dismissed with modification with respect to the interest as mentioned above.
No cost is awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case.
.