J.C. Verma, J.
1. The present Misc. Appeal has been preferred challenging the award dated 17.1.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in MACT Case No. 66/1992 whereby the claimant has been awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- only. This present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the award.
2. The claimant had sustained the injuries in the accident occurred on 21.8.1991 when she was travelling in the mini bus No. RJ-14/P-0374 to go to Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur when the other vehicle Metador No. RJ-14/G-1137 had struck the mini bus, due to which the claimant sustained serious injuries. She was taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. The injured sustained fracture in hand, dislocation of elbow which became unstable and fingers shifted. She remained admitted in hospital for about one month at two times and she was operated open on 17.12.1991. As per medical opinion she suffered permanent disability to the extent of 90%. It is stated that the claimant is unable to perform home duties. She was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month from sewing prior to the accident. Apart from the oral evidence the documents were also exhibited.
3. After framing the required issues in regard to accident, negligence and quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered the statements of witnesses and the documents, it was held by the Tribunal that the accident had been caused because of negligence of the driver of the Metador. The claimant was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month by sewing. She remained admitted in hospital. She sustained the permanent disability to the extent of 90%. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,25,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 10,000/- for the suffering and injuries and Rs. 5,000/- for special diet and medical expenses. The total compensation Rs. 1,40/000/- only has been awarded.
4. For the reason that the appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation, there is hardly any necessity to enter into other aspect of the case i.e. in regard to negligence or the manner in which the accident had taken place. No counter appeal has been filed by any of the respondents.
5. The Tribunal considered the statements of Dr. M.K. Mathur, A.W. 3 that because of the fracture and dislocation of elbow her hand has become unstable and fingers had been stiffened. She is unable to work and sustained permanent disability to the extent of 90%. The claimant was 40 years old. The Tribunal has held that because of 90% disability, the claimant is entitled to non-pecuniary compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- for pecuniary compensation. Apart from above medical expenses and special diet Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded, I have gone through the evidence of witnesses A.W. 1, A.W. 2 and A.W. 3, certified copies of which have been placed on record.
6. Counsel for appellant relies on the judgment in Norat Mal v. Latur Lal and Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 469/1994 decided on 12.10.2000, wherein the injured sustained amputation of right hand with the permanent disability to the extent of 50%, but the present case is not of amputation of any limb. However, it has been brought on record that the left hand of the injured lady is incapable of working. She suffered permanent disability to the extent of 90%, which is as good as having no hand at all. It goes without saying that the amputation of hand is more serious injury than having disabled hand. The disablement of hand cannot be equated to that amputation but still in my opinion the award of the Tribunal is to be modified in the following manner:
(i) the compensation of non-pecuniary damages is maintained as Rs. 1,25,000/-'
(ii) the claimant shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation of pain and suffering;
(iii) Even though an amount of Rs. one lac has been claimed for medical expenses, special diet and for travelling, etc., the award of Rs. 15,000/-can be termed as sufficient instead of Rs. 5,000/-.
7. For the reasons mentioned above the total amount of compensation including non-pecuniary compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- is awarded to claimant, which shall bear the interest as awarded by the Tribunal that is 12% per annum from 3.5.1992.
8. The balance of the amount of compensation shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order by respondents jointly and severally. Any amount, so far paid, shall be adjusted.
With the above observations, the Misc. Appeal allowed.