JUDGMENT
G.L. Gupta, J.
1. These two appeals have been preferred by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur vide judgment dated 18.2.1991. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- to the claimant Hamid alias Bhuria for the injuries suffered by him and a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to Abdul Sattar for the damage to the autorickshaw.
2. The accident had taken place in the night intervening 13/14.9.1988. Hamid alias Bhuria who used to earn his livelihood by carrying passengers in the autorickshaw No. RRG 1533 was moving slowly on the left side of the road when the bus of Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. No. RNP 2175 hit the autorickshaw with the result that it over-turned and Hamid alias Bhuria had sustained various injuries. The autorickshaw went up in flames. In the claim application a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was claimed by Hamid alias Bhuria and a sum of Rs. 45,800/- was claimed by Abdul Sattar. The reply of the R.S.R.T.C. was that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw.
3. The Tribunal framed six issues. Claimant Hamid alias Bhuria and Abdul Sattar entered into the witness-box and examined Pankaj Choudhary, AW 2, Mohammad, AW 4, Yamin, AW 5, Dr. V.S. Chandalia, AW 6, and Ved Prakash Sharma, AW 7. In the rebuttal, Bhanwar Singh, driver of the bus gave his statement.
4. The Tribunal after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties held under issue No. 1 that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the bus by Bhanwar Singh. Under issue No. 2 compensation as stated above was held to be just compensation.
5. Mr. B.C. Rawat, the learned Counsel for the appellants, contends that grossly inadequate sum has been awarded under the head ‘loss of income’, and also for the mental agony and deprivation of the enjoyment in life. He relies on the cases of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. 1995 ACJ 366 (SC) and Arvind Kumar v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma 1995 ACJ 948 (Delhi). His further contention is that more amount ought to have been awarded for damage to the autorickshaw.
6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent R.S.R.T.C. contends that the Tribunal has been liberal in awarding compensation and no more amount should be awarded.
7. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for the medical and diet expenses, Rs. 30,000/- for the injuries on the legs, bodily pain and mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 90,000/- for the permanent disability resulting into the deprivation of income.
8. It has come in the statement of Hamid alias Bhuria that he used to ply autorickshaw and earned Rs. 100-125/-per day. It has further come in his statement that he used to pay Rs. 35/- as hire for taxi and spent Rs. 20-25/- on the petrol. This indicates that the daily income of the appellant was about Rs. 50/-. It is an admitted fact that the right leg of the appellant has been amputated from above the knee leaving only ‘/3rd of the thigh portion. Thus, the appellant has become permanent incapacitated at least to do the job in which he was engaged. There is, of course, no evidence on the record as to what was the percentage of the disability of the appellant. However, keeping in view that there is amputation of the leg of the appellant it can definitely be inferred that the appellant has suffered and is likely to suffer a loss because of this accident. He can, of course, do some work sitting at one place. Keeping the facts and circumstances into consideration it can be said that the daily income of the appellant now cannot be more than Rs. 25/-. Thus, there is loss of Rs. 25/- per day which amounts to Rs. 750/- per month. The annual loss comes to Rs. 9,000/-. The appellant was 22 years of age at the time of accident. It is reasonable to adopt the multiplier of sixteen to compute the total loss of in- come. This works out to be Rs. 1,44,000. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 90,000/- for the loss of the income. In my opinion, the appellant should be awarded a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- under the head ‘loss of income’.
9. As stated above, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for the injuries, bodily pain and mental agony. In this particular case one special feature has to be taken note of that the appellant was unmarried. Since he has lost his leg he is not likely to get himself married and he will be deprived of marital enjoyment throughout his life. I, therefore, think it proper to enhance a sum of Rs. 20,000/-under the head of bodily pain and mental agony.
10. A reasonable sum has been awarded for the treatment and the diet expenses.
11. In my opinion, the just compensation which should be awarded to the appellant is Rs. 2,09,000/-.
12. Coming to the appeal of Abdul Sattar it may be stated that there is no scope of enhancement of compensation. Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the matter and has given a finding that Abdul Sattar was entitled to Rs. 7,000/-only. I do not find that this amount is inadequate.
13. Consequently, Appeal No. 536 of 1991 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
14. Appeal No. 535 of 1991 is allowed in part. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified in this respect that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,09,000/- from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum as directed by the Tribunal. The amount already paid shall be deducted from this amount. The amount shall be paid by account payee cheque only. The appellant shall deposit the amount enhanced by this Court along with interest there in the fixed deposit accounts for a term of 6 year and 9 year in equal sum.