JUDGMENT
A.S.V. Moorthy, C.J.
1. The injured-claimant was coming to Durg from Nagpur in Tata Sumo bearing registration No. MH 31-Z 6089 on 12.4.1999 and when the said vehicle reached near village Urai-Dabari, a truck bearing registration No. MP 23-DA 3456 came from the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed ,against the Tata Sumo and because of which the appellant and others who were travelling in the said Tata Sumo sustained injuries.
2. The appellant filed a Claim Case No. 43 of 1999 claiming compensation of Rs. 11,90,000 under various heads since she had sustained head injury as well as hip injury. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 35,800. Being aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been filed.
3. Accident took place because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck bearing registration No. MP 23-DA 3456 is not in dispute now. The only question that remains for consideration is what is the just compensation for which the appellant would be entitled.
4. According to the appellant, she was a labourer in orange market, Nagpur known as Santara Market and doing the work of loading and unloading of fruits and getting daily income of Rs. 150. Her further case is that she sustained serious injuries, namely, fracture of frontal bone of the head and fracture of hip bone and because of which she is unable to work as she was doing earlier. She was operated twice and a rod was fixed in her leg. That apart, she is feeling pain in the legs and often feels giddiness. Initially she was admitted in Durg District Hospital and was an indoor patient from 13.4.1999 to 17.4.1999 and thereafter, she was in Sector 9 Hospital from 17.4.1999 to 8.5.1999. Appellant has produced the discharge tickets issued by the said respective hospitals and the same are marked as Exhs. A/1 and A/2. Exhs. A/4 to A/6 have been filed to show the expenses incurred by her for the treatment. Exh. A/11 has been produced to show that she was treated by Dr. Praveen Gupta at Nagpur. X-ray for her hip joint was taken vide Exh. A/18 and X-ray plates are Exhs. A/18-C and A/19-C.
5. The oral and documentary evidence adduced would clearly prove that the appellant sustained serious injuries and she was operated upon twice and that she is not even able to walk properly and unable to work due to frequent giddiness. It cannot be denied that she was in the hospital for 27 days. The grievance of the appellant is that the amount awarded by way of compensation is very much on the lower side.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant would be entitled for compensation under the heads detailed hereunder:
(i) Medical expenses Rs. 10,000
ii) Special diet Rs. 3,000
(iii) Transport Rs. 2,000
(iv) Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000
(v) Attendant Rs. 2,000
(vi) Loss of past earnings Rs. 10,800
(vii) Loss of future
earnings Rs. 30,000
(viii) Compensation for
partial permanen
disability including
loss of happiness,
pleasure and
enjoyment of life Rs. 35,000
(ix) Face disfigurement Rs. 10,000
________________
Total Rs. 1,27,800
________________
Thus, this Court is of the view that the appellant would be entitled for Rs. 1,27,800, but what has been awarded by the Tribunal is Rs. 35,800. In other words, the appellant would be entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 92,000, i.e., over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal, which will carry interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition.
Ordered accordingly.
Appeal is thus disposed of.