A.B. Pal, J.
1. This appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation is directed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala (in short 'Tribunal') passed on 21.8.1996 in T.S. (MAC) 76 of 1992, by which an amount of Rs. 55,000 along with interest @ 12% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant-appellant for the injuries sustained by him on his right hand in a motor accident.
2. The short facts leading to the claim are that on 16.8.1991 at about 11 A.M., the claimant Nirmal Ch. Paul while walking towards his house at Hapania, was knocked down by the offending vehicle AS-11 1358 on Agartala-Udaipur Road due to rash and negligent driving. He sustained injuries and was taken to the G.B. Hospital, where he was treated in three spells covering more than a month. He was aged 35 years and was earning Rs. 1,800 per month from a grocery shop owned by him. A complaint was registered with the Amtali Police Station immediately after the accident and accordingly Amtali P.S. Case No. 8(8)91 was registered under Section 279/338 I.P.C. He claimed that he did not recover fully instead of long spell of treatment entailing an amount of Rs. 25,000. He claimed an amount of Rs. 8,56,000 as compensation for the injuries, which, according to him, caused permanent disablement to the extent of 25%.
3. Learned Tribunal after a full dressed trial, examining two witnesses and taking into consideration the documents in support of the claim held that the claimant was earning not more than Rs. 1,500 per month from the grocery shop and that haying regard to 25% disablement, his loss of income was not more than one-third of the monthly income, i.e., Rs. 500 per month. The Tribunal, thus, calculated the loss of income at Rs. 500 x 12 = Rs. 6,000, which was multiplied by 10 to arrive at Rs. 60,000. From this amount, he made 10% standard deduction towards uncertainty of life and profession bringing down the amount to Rs. 54,000. Thereafter, he added Rs. 1,000 for shock and sufferings, which finally made the amount to Rs. 55,000. He also allowed interest @12% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 26.6.1992 till the date of payment.
4. We have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. RK. Debnath, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. None was present to argue on behalf of the respondent-owner.
5. The only dispute in the present appeal relates to the amount of compensation, which, according to the appellant, was wrongly calculated. The first objection was 10% standard deduction towards uncertainty of life and business. Mr. Talapatra submits that the award being as meagre amount, the Tribunal should not have made any standard deduction. The second, grievance of the appellant is that the multiplier 10 was wrongly chosen, as the age of the appellant was admittedly 35 years at the time of accident. Mr. Talapatra submits following the structured formula laid down in the Second Schedule of the M.V. Act, 1988, the correct multiplier is 17. The third grievance is that only Rs. 1,000 was awarded towards shock and pain and nothing was awarded towards cost of treatment.
6. Mr. Debnath, on the other hand, submits that the appellant failed to prove that he sustained any grievous injury leading to his permanent disablement though he claimed 25% disablement on his right hand. He did not produce any disablement certificate to prove his claim and that it is not possible to decide permanent partial disablement only on the basis of hospital discharge certificate. For deciding permanent disablement, it was necessary for the appellant to appear before the Medical Board constituted for this purpose.
7. We have taken into consideration the arrival submission's as well as the evidence on record. There is no serious quarrel on the monthly income of the appellant, who claimed Rs. 1,800 and the Tribunal decided Rs. 1,500 leaving a small margin and acceptance of the claim of 25% disablement though not supported by medical certificate. The Tribunal held that was the loss of income as it could not be determined that the nature of disablement rendered the appellant incapable of running his grocery shop. As regards disability in non-fatal accident, the structured formula in the Second Schedule of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides that compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim only for the actual period of disablement not exceeding 52 weeks, plus in the case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent disablement. As we have already noticed there is no proof of permanent partial disablement and the Tribunal taking a liberal view has chosen 10 as the multiplier, which in other words, amounts to compensating the loss of income for 10 years, we find no infirmity with the Tribunal in choosing 10 as the multiplier in the given facts and circumstances of this case.
8. We have, however, noticed that no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal towards cost of treatment though 23 cash memos had been enclosed. Having regard to the period of treatment, natural injuries and the medicine required, we are of the view that the appellant incurred at least Rs. 5,000 towards cost of treatment. We are also of the view that the Tribunal while awarding the small amount of compensation need not have made 10% deduction.
9. In view of the above discussions, this appeal is allowed to the extent that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall stand enhanced by Rs. 11,000 more taking the amount to Rs. 55,000 + Rs. 11,000 = Rs. 66,000. We, however, do not disturb the rate of interest, which being on a little higher side shall take care of loss of expectancy, if any, caused by the injuries. No cost.