JUDGMENT
Arun Mishra, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the insurer aggrieved by an award dated 6.4.2002 passed by Eighteenth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Jabalpur in Claim Case No. 97 of 2002.
2. The claimant Dilip Kumar filed an application seeking compensation for the injuries caused to him in the accident dated 25.4.1994. His right leg was amputated below knee level. It was alleged that the claimant was driving tractor No. MP 20-H 9293, which was going from Deori to Panagar. Truck No. MKK 5006 came from Jabalpur side and dashed against the tractor near village Kushner, owing to which claimant sustained serious injuries. He was under treatment when claim petition was filed. Subsequently, his right leg was amputated below knee level. According to the claimant the accident was caused owing to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. Truck was driven by Sheikh Pappu, owned by Sheikh Kallu and insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The tractor was owned by Khemchand Kewat and insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. Criminal case was registered at Crime No. 516 of 1994 as against the driver of the truck. He had admitted the guilt and was punished. A claim petition was filed before the amputation of leg, for the injuries sustained and compensation of Rs. 3,90,000 was claimed. Later on during pendency of the petition leg has been amputated.
3. The owner and driver of the truck and the owner of the tractor remained ex parte.
4. The insurer of the vehicle in the written statement contended that the claimant himself was negligent. Apart from that National Insurance Co. Ltd. took the plea that the tractor was not insured.
5. Learned Member, Claims Tribunal, has found that the accident was caused owing to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. Claimant has sustained injuries. Driver of the tractor, the claimant, was not responsible for the accident. Total compensation of Rs. 3,50,000 has been ordered to be paid. Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 on account of loss of earning capacity, towards physical pain and mental suffering, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 has been awarded on account of other heads. Consequently, this appeal has been preferred by the insurer.
6. It is submitted by the appellant that receipts of Rs. 20,000 have been filed. Thus, award of Rs. 1,50,000 towards expenditure and under the various heads is on higher side. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that grant of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 under the other heads and expenditure is on higher side.
7. It is clear that the claim petition was riled at the time when amputation of limb has not taken place. Admittedly, the amputation of right leg below knee level has taken place. Thus, the amount claimed in the claim petition cannot be a safe criteria to assess the quantum of compensation to be awarded. Even then we find that the lesser and just compensation has been awarded then what was claimed in the claim petition.
8. Dilip Kumar, the claimant has stated that he was initially admitted in Medical College, Jabalpur for 15-20 days, thereafter he got discharged for better treatment and was admitted in Dr. Jamdar’s Hospital. He was also treated by Dr. Ajit at Panagar, but, his condition did not improve. Initially surgery was performed at Medical College, Jabalpur, where rod was inserted, plaster applied, but as pain did not subside, plaster was removed by Dr. Ajit. Thereafter, he was admitted at Dr. Jamdar’s Hospital from 17.8.1994 to 29.9.94. On 31.8.1994 his right leg was amputated below knee level. Discharge certificate, Exh. P6, of Dr. Jamdar’s Hospital was filed. He was still under treatment as on the date when the claimant was examined in the court, i.e., 3.4.2002. He went to Jaipur for obtaining artificial limb. He was again admitted in the hospital for 7 days, spent Rs. 4,000 in Jaipur. Court has observed that his right leg was amputated. Claimant has clearly stated that he spent Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 1,75,000 so far on treatment. Dr. Jamdar’s fee was Rs. 16,000. He spent Rs. 5,000 in going to Jaipur and staying. He also spent amount in the Medical College, Jabalpur and while he was admitted in Dr. Jamdar’s Hospital. Amount was also spent on special diet, medicines and attendants. He had handed over the receipts to his counsel Mr. Gupta, but he has misplaced them. He was unable to work, even with the help of artificial limb. He was unable to drive tractor or perform work as labourer.
9. It is clear that his right leg was amputated below knee level. The overall compensation of Rs. 3,50,000 which has been awarded cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. He was young at the time when accident took place. He was aged 22 years. He has to live remaining part of life without limb. He has sustained serious kind of permanent disability. He cannot drive the tractor and cannot perform the work of labourer. For these purposes, his disability for earning capacity is 50 per cent as provided under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for amputation below knee level. Even if the earning capacity of claimant is taken at Rs. 2,500 per month, per month loss is Rs. 1,250, multiplied by 12, it comes to Rs. 15,000 per annum, multiplier of 17 is applicable at the age of 22 years, thus it comes to Rs. 15,000 x 17 = Rs. 2,55,000. For physical pain and suffering the sum of Rs. 50,000 would meet the ends of justice. It is stated that Rs. 16,000 was paid to Dr. Jamdar, Rs. 4,000 was spent at Jaipur, expenditure of Rs. 10,000 must have been incurred on conveyance, on special diet a sum of Rs. 7,500 and the remaining amount takes care of expenditure incurred on attendant and medicines and loss of earnings during the treatment. Thus, the compensation of Rs. 3,50,000 which has been awarded cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. For loss of limb compensation has to be on higher side as person suffers disability for entire life. Thus, the compensation which has been awarded cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. We find no merit in this appeal. The only question raised is about quantum of compensation, question of negligence has not been agitated by the learned Counsel for the insurer. Hence, we find the appeal to be meritless. The rate of interest is also considered to be proper considering the year in which accident took place. No case for interference in the rate of interest is made out in the facts of this case.
10. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. No costs.