JUDGMENT
A.R. Tiwari, J.
1. This Misc. Appeal presented under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against the award dated 15th March, 1984 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ujjain in Claim Case No. 64/81, thereby granting compensation of Rs. 700/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till realisation against the respondents No. 1 and 2.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant (claimant) filed the claim case against respondents No. 1 and 2. The passenger bus bearing registration No. CPH 8678 was owned by respondent No. 1 At the relevant time, it was driven by respondent No. 2. This bus left for Khargone at 3.30 p.m. from Ujjain. The claimant was a conductor on this bus. After depositing the tax at NAKA, the appellant was in the process of boarding the bus when the respondent No. 2 without any signal started the bus rashly and negligently, as a result of which the appellant fell down from the bus and sustained injuries. The appellant claimed the compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The claim was resisted by the respondents. On evaluation of the evidence, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 700/- as noted above. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. I have heard Shri G.K. Neema learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri M.L. Dhupar learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 3. None appeared for respondent No. 2.
4. Placing reliance on State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Chand Krishan Hazari and Anr. Shri Neema submitted that the compensation allowed in this case is too low and deserved to be augmented reasonably. Shri Neema submitted that the appellant suffered several injuries. Some of them being grievous, as also the fracture. Shri Dhuper, on the other hand, submitted that there was no proper proof about nature of injuries and as such the appeal deserved to be dismissed.
5. It may also be noted that the respondents No. 1 and 2 also preferred cross-objections in this case on 19.11.84 contending that the Presiding Officer was not validly appointed as Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and as such the order passed by him was without jurisdiction. However, this cross-objection was not pressed before me during argument and as such the same is dismissed.
6. As regards contentions urged in this appeal, it may be observed that a claimant should not be permitted to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen him. However, the Apex Court has taken the view in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi 1980 ACJ 55 that the determination of quantum of compensation must be liberal, not niggardly, since the law values life and limb in free country in generous scales.
7. It is thus, clear that compensation to a living person for his sufferings and disablement has to be substantial and not merely token.
8. In 1970 ACJ 189 Vinod Kumar Shrivastava v. Ved Mitra this Court laid down the principles for award of damages in the case of personal injuries suffered by accident as under:
(a) the amount of compensation must be reasonable and needs to be assessed with moderation.
(b) The quantification should be with due regard to comparable cases.
(c) The level should, to a considerable extent, be conventional.
9. I proceed to examine the merits of the matter bearing in mind the aforesaid principles. The Tribunal has held in para 15 of impugned award that the appellant sustained injuries and incurred expenses in treatment. It also held that the appellant suffered pain. It was also proved that the appellant remained in the hospital as in indoor patient for 15 days. Yet the Tribunal awarded only petty sum of Rs. 700/- as compensation.
10. Taking over all view of the entire case, I consider that the compensation of Rs. 7000/- as particularised below would be just and reasonable compensation.
Loss of income Rs. 750.00 Expenses of medicines etc. Rs. 1250.00 General damages. Rs. 5000.00 Total Rs. 7000.00
11. In the ultimate analysis, this appeal is accepted in part. The award stands modified as above. The direction of the payment of interest at the rate of 9% on the aforesaid compensation remained unaltered. The respondents shall thus, pay the sum of Rs. 7000/-together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till realisation. The respondents are directed to bear their costs and shall also pay the costs of the appellant which is quantified at Rs. 750/-. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. The record of the Tribunal is now directed to be returned immediately.