JUDGMENT
Varghese Kalliath, J.
1. This is an appeal against the award in M.A.C. No. 250 of 1982 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. Appellants before us are the owner of a tempo van which caused injury to the petitioner in M.A.C. No. 250 of 1982 and the in surer. They were the 1st and 3rd respondents before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent was the driver of the tempo van.
2. Two questions arise for consideration in this appeal. The first question is as to whether the driver of the tempo van was negligent and that caused the accident. The se and question is whether the amount of compensation awarded is justifiable in the circumstances of the case.
3. The unfortunate event happened on 19.7.1982 at about 8 o’clock in the morning. It happened in Beach Road, Calicut, The 2nd appellant is the owner of the tempo van. It was insured with the 1st appellant. The tempo van was driven by the 2nd respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The injured petitioner before the Tribunal was riding a scooter. He came from a side road to Beach Road, Calicut. The tempo van was overtaking a stationary bus. The tempo van was coming from south to north; The scooter which came from a side road when reached beach Road, wanted to go to the northern side. From Exh. A-5 sketch, it is plain and clear that the petitioner injured was keeping his side. It is not very clear at what point of time the accident took place, whether it is immediately after the overtaking of the bus by the tempo van or after some time. Any-how, from Exh. A-5 what is seen is that the tempo van was not keeping its side. So, the case of the driver of the tempo van who has been examined on the side of the appellants that the driver was not negligent, cannot be accepted. The Tribunal also found so. We see no error in this finding. We affirm this finding.
4. The remaining question-that has to be considered is as to whether the compensation awarded is justifiable or not. The claimant injured claimed an amount of Rs. 3.000/- for meeting the medical expenses. There is clear evidence in this case that the petitioner was in the hospital for four months. The amount of Rs. 3,000/- cannot be said to be on the higher side considering the fact that the injured was in the hospital for four months and he has undergone surgery in the hospital. In regard to minor items like transportation, extra nourishment, damage to clothing and scooter, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 300/-, Rs. 200/- and Rs. 357/- respectively. We do not think that any case has been made out before us to interfere with these items, allowed by the Tribunal. There is clear evidence in the case that the injured was deprived of his salary for 4 months and he is entitled to the salary for four months, Rs. 6,000/-. The Tribunal has allowed this claim also. We do not think that there is any justification for us to interfere with this item also.
5. The injured was, as we said earlier, in the hospital for four months and had an operation for removing his leg knee-cap. He must have undergone severe pain and inconvenience. He has claimed Rs. 32,000/- for pain and suffering. The Tribunal has found that the amount claimed is reasonable. Another item of claim was on account of the permanent disability caused by the accident. There is clear evidence in this case that the accident caused the petitioner limping of the injured leg and the injured is prevented from freely using his leg because of The operation and the injury he has sustained on his leg. He has claimed Rs. 50,000/- on this count. He has also claimed a further amount of Rs. 54,0007 under the head loss of earnings because of his disability. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the injured is not entitled to get both these claims together. When the Tribunal is prepared to grant an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for the permanent disability, there is no peculiar or special case for the injured to claim an additional amount of Rs. 54,000/- for loss of earning power. As regards loss of earning power, there is only the interested evidence of the injured. We have perused that evidence. We are not at all convinced about the claim.
6. According to the injured, he could have done some field work and because of the disability caused by the accident, he cannot do that. Of course, we have to convert this disability into compensation in money and for that more data is required, it is in evidence that the injured is a cashier in an important company. There is no evidence in this case that he has been deputed for field work and that he was earning something more over and above the pay that he was drawing.
7. In these circumstances, Counsel for the appellants is fully justified in saying that the injured cannot claim an additional amount of Rs. 54,000/- when the disability is compensated by awarding an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. In fact one of the elements to be taken into account for compensation is the loss of earning power. Of course, as we said earlier, if there is a special case to be cited for special treatment that requires clear and clean evidence. In this case we see no such evidence and so we feel that the injured is not entitled to an amount of Rs. 54,000/- over and above Rs. 50,000/- granted by the Tribunal on the ground of disability.
8. In the result, we modify the award reducing the compensation of Rs. 1,50,0007- to Rs. 96,000/-. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the dale of filing the petition till date of payment with proportionate costs here, and in the Tribunal. Appeal is disposed of as above.