Judgment:
H.H. Kantharaia, J.
1. The appellant, Pareshbhai Raojibhai Patel, was on 8th June, 1977 travelling by motor car bearing No. GJH 2115 and was going from Mahableshwar to Goa. The said car was being driven by respondent No. 3 whereas respondent No. 4 was the owner of the said car. The car was insured with respondent No. 5, United Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Branch Office at Sunil Chambers, Station Road, Anand, District Kaira in the State of Gujarat. When the car was going from Sawantwadi to Vengurla, a bus bearing No. MHG 8461 belonging to respondent No. 1, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, came from the opposite direction. The bus was driven by respondent No. 2, Dhondiram Shivaji Majhalkar, whose name has been deleted by the order of the Additional Registrar dated 8th October, 1985. The accident took place at that time on account of which the appellant lost one eye and suffered 50% permanent disability. He, therefore, made an application for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ratnagiri. His claim was resisted in toto both by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 5 on the ground that the drivers of both vehicles were not negligent and that the claim as contended by the appellant on his monthly income was not acceptable and should be rejected.
2. On appreciation of the evidence adduced before him, the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion, by the impugned judgment and order, that the appellant proved that respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently drove the S.T. bus and dashed against the car in which the appellant was travelling on account of which the appellant sustained injuries. According to the learned Member of the Tribunal, the appellant further proved that respondent No. 3 was also rash and negligent in driving the car in which the appellant was travelling and, therefore, the accident and injuries sustained by the appellant. It was, therefore, held that the appellant was entitled to a claim of compensation of Rs. 55,000/- payable equally by respondent Nos. 1 and 5.
3. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed this appeal contending that the compensation awarded to him was short by Rs. 45,000/-.
4. At the hearing, Mr. Trivedi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, urged that regard being had to the monthly income of the appellant at the time of the accident and the loss of one eye and permanent disability to the extent of 50%, it would have been just, fair and proper that the appellant should have been granted a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and, therefore, this Court should enhance the compensation from Rs. 55,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- and direct that respondent Nos. 1 and 5 should equally pay up the remaining amount of Rs. 45,000/- to the appellant. No arguments were advanced on behalf of either side about the rash and negligent act of driving the vehicles by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Resisting the appeal, Mr. Naik appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Kudroli appearing for respondent No. 5 urged that regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case, the amount of compensation should not be enhanced and the appeal be dismissed.
5. Now, it is to be noted that the appellant had demanded Rs. 30,000/- for the medical expenses but could only produce documentary evidence to the extent of Rs. 3,452.47 and the learned Member of the Tribunal was not wrong in rounding up the amount of compensation on account of the medical expenses to Rs. 5,000/-. He rightly added a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on that account as the medical practitioner who had treated the appellant, who was examined at the trial, deposed that a bill of Rs. 5,000/- could not be paid by the appellant. Therefore, the learned Member of the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as expenses incurred over the medical treatment by the appellant. This has not been disputed by either side.
6. Then, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 500/- and an yearly income of Rs. 500/- from a partnership and taking into consideration the further fact that the appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50%, the learned Member of the Tribunal granted him an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for pain and agonies and further compensation of Rs. 40,000/-. Thus, in all the appellant was awarded total amount of Rs. 55,000/- as compensation.
7. On going through the record and hearing learned Counsel appearing on all sides, we are of the opinion that so long as the amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for pain and agony is concerned, neither any controversy was raised before us nor do we find any material so as to interfere with the finding arrived at tby the learned Member of the Tribunal in this regard. However, in our opinion, the learned Member committed errors in granting general compensation of Rs. 40,000/- only on account of the permanent disability sustained by the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant was earning Rs. 500/- per month leaving aside the travelling and daily allowances which he was getting whenever lie was on duty out of the town. He was, at the time of the impugned judgment 30 years old and the learned Member of the Tribunal considered the longevity of an Indian at that time as 65 years which is also not disputed before us. Thus, the learned Member of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant had to suffer permanent disability at least for 35 years more to come. Now, if the appellant was able to work for 35 years more on a rounded up figure of Rs. 500/- per month, he would have earned Rs. 2,10,000/-. Since he had suffered 50% permanent disability, he would be normally at least be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- as general compensation. Therefore, ordinarily we would have raised the general compensation from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 1,05,000/- and would have thus granted further compensation of Rs. 65,000/- to the appellant. However, the appellant has restricted his claim only to Rs. 1,00,000/-. He has been awarded compensation of Rs. 55,000/-. Therefore, it would be just, fair and proper that we grant him additional compensation of Rs. 45,000/-.
8. In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is allowed in the terms aforesaid. Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 are hereby directed to pay up the appellant a further sum of Rs. 45,000/- equally (i.e. Rs. 22,500/- each) within a period of one month failing which they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% to the appellant effective from December 24, 1993. No order as to costs.