Judgment:
G.C. Garg, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award dated August 8, 1984 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby a sum of Rs. 27,195.69 paise has been awarded to the appellant as compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident, payable by respondent No. 3, the United India Insurance Company with costs of the proceedings.
2. On November 24, 1982, the appellant was passing through a lane while driving a scooter when respondent No. 1 all of a sudden reversed his truck already parked there which struck against the scooter driven by the appellant, as a result of which the left leg of the appellant was crushed and ultimately had to be amputated. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation on account of pain and suffering, the amputation of his leg and genera] damages. Respondent No. J while denying his negligence alleged that rather it was the appellant who was driving scooter at a high speed and dashed into the truck from back side.
3. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the entire evidence led before it, observed that the appellant received injury due to the accident caused by respondent No. 1, the driver of the truck. The Tribunal therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 12,195.69 Paise on account of the expenses incurred by the appellant on his treatment and on medicines etc A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded on account of pain and suffering whereas another sum of Rs. 5000/- was awarded on account of travelling expenses forgoing to the office. Thu , as noticed above, a total sum of Rs. 27,195.69 was in all awarded by the Tribunal.
4. The present appeal is at the instance of the appellant for enhancement of compensation.
5. The appellant at the time of the accident was aged 44 years and working as a Clerk , As a result of the accident, his left leg had to be amputated about 6 inches , below the knee. He thus, suffered a permanent disability He remained in the hospital for at least three weeks Learned counsel for the appellant could not seriously challenge the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,195.69 paise awarded account of expenses on medical treatment and for purchase of medicines nor is there any reason or justification to enhance compensation on the aforesaid counts, for, the award of compensation of the aforesaid amount is based and calculated on the basis of documentary, evidence Learned counsel for the appellant, however, argued that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in awarded only a sum of Rs. 10,000/-for pain and suffering The learned counsel submitted that the appellant should have been awarded a much higher amount of compensation for pain and suffering as he had suffered permanent disability on account of amputation of his left leg which was the direct result of the accident Learned counsel relied upon Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh and Ors., 1980 A. C J. 777., and a judgment of this Court in Hardev Singh v. Sharnarthi Cooperative Transport Society Ltd., 1988 A. C. J. 182, to contend that for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life having regard to the nature of injuries received by the appellant and the ordeal he had to undergo, if money be any 'solace, the grant of Rs. 50,000/ would be just and fair by way of damages. In the above noticed case, the accident had taken place on October 10, 1972 and as a result of which the claimant therein sustained injuries and consequently a part of his right foot had to be amputated. The Supreme Court, after considering the matter, awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.
6. On the other hand, learned, counsel for respondent No. 3, the United India Insurance Company, however, contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the aforesaid count was quite just and fair and no interference was called for.
7. I have considered the matter and am of the view that the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. Admittedly, the appellant suffered permanent disability on account of amputation of his calf leg. Under the aforesaid head, the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra's case (supra) had awarded a sum of Rs. 28,000/- where the accident had taken place on October 10, 1972. In the present case, however, the accident had taken place almost about ten years later i.e. in November, 1982. Therefore, I sea no reason for not granting still higher compensation under the above head in respect of the accident that took place 10 years later. Thus, having regard to the totality of the circumstances, I feel that it will be just and fair if the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on account of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that since the appellant has suffered a permanent disability on account of amputation of his leg, he is also entitled to special damages and the Tribunal has failed to award any amount on that account. He pointed out that only a sum of Rs. ;000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal to meet the expenses for going to the office. For (his relief, the counsel strorgly placed reliance on Hardev Singh's case (supra). I have considered the submission of the learned counsel. Thrugh do specific evidence has been produced to show that the appellant bad suffered any general damages, yet there is merit in the contention. In Hardev Singh's case, (supra), the claimant was an agriculturist and his right leg had to be amputated on account of the injuries sustained in a vehicular accident which took place in January 1980 and a sum of Rs. one lac was awarded by this Court on account of permanent disability, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, cost of medical treatment and limb, loss of earning and cost of future transport. It is thus, clear that the claimant therein was awarded some compensation on account of permanent disability also, as special damages. A reference to the award of the Tribunal would show that nothing was awarded to the appellant on this account except that he was awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- by way of transport charges In Narinder Pal Singh v. Punjab State through Secretary Transport, Punjab Government, Chandigarh and Ors., 1989 A. C. J. 708., a Division Bench of this Court did not disturb the award of the Tribunal which besides awarding compensation under various beads, had also awarded a sum of Rs. 15.000/- as special damages to the claimant therein on account of amputation of his arm and, therefore, obviously, the amount of Rs. 15,0f0/- was considered by the Division Bench to be a quite appropriate and reasonable sum for being awarded on account of amputation of arm. In Narinder Pal Singh's case (supra), the accident bad taken place in the year 1984 whereas in the case in band, in November, 1982. Thus, having regard to the decision in the aforesaid case and the totality circumstances and also the nature of injury and loss of a part of leg on account of amputation, I award a sum of Rs. 15,000/-as special damages to the appellant. This amount of Rs. 15. 000/- is being awarded in addition to Rs. 5,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal on account of transport charges.
9. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The, award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the enhanced amounts of compensation, from the date of the claim petition till its realisation. The appellant will have his costs which are assessed at Rs. 500/-.