ORDER
Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in M.C.C. No. 496/99, dated 22-12-2000, at the instance of the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Accident took place on 15-9-99, at 7.15 a.m. when the appellant, an employee of the M.P.S.R.T.C., was hit by Mini Bus No. MP-04-H/7924, driven by Sunil Gupta rashly and negligently. In the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the right leg below the knee. Case was registered with the police and claimant shifted to the hospital. During treatment in Gokuldas Hospital, Indore, rod was inserted at the site of the fracture. In this accident, the claimant suffered permanent disability to a great extent. Claim petition was filed for compensation of Rs. 3,40,000.00 against the respondents jointly and severally.
3. Before the Claims Tribunal, respondents Sunil Gupta and Baboolal Mathil, owner and driver of the vehicle, remained ex-pane, while the Insurance Company, United India Insurance Co, Ltd. contested the claim and denied liability alleging that the driver did not possess valid driving licence for driving the vehicle, therefore, it was not liable to pay the compensation. Facts stated in the claim petition have been denied and prayer for rejection of the claim has been put up.
4. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that Mini Bus No, MP-04-H-7924, driven rashly and negligently, hit the claimant resulting in injuries. Against claim of Rs. 3,40,000.00, Rs. 1,12,500.00 have been awarded, payable by the respondents with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, apart from Rs. 500.00 as costs of the petition.
5. Shri Manikant Sharma, learned counsel for the claimant, submits that award of compensation is grossly low, therefore, it be enhanced, Particular reference has been made to compensation payable against injuries suffered by the claimant, expenditure on medicines and mental pain and suffering. In support of this submission, evidence was referred to.
6. Shri Rajesh Patel with Shri Sunil Kherdiker, on behalf of United India Insurance Co., has opposed this appeal. It is submitted that in the light of evidence adduced by the claimant, award of compensation is reasonable and justified. The claimant did not produce tangible evidence in respect of expenditure for treatment and disability is to the extent of 26.2%. Therefore, on the basis of this evidence, there is no case for enhancement of compensation.
7. After considering and appreciating the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and going through the evidence recorded in this case, we notice that the claimant was seriously injured. His tibia and fibula were fractured in this accident. He was subjected to surgical operations as many as 5 times. Medical documents demonstrate that he was admitted in the hospital number of times and remained there for a long period. Rod was inserted during operation and extra support instrument was provided since it was not possible for the claimant to use his right leg effectively after operations. These facts were perused by the Tribunal also when the claimant appeared during the course of trial of the case. Due to these injuries, movement of ankle was also affected. It may be true that the Doctor who had examined the claimant, has placed the disability at 26.2%. But the nature of injuries and surgical operations do suggest that the injuries suffered by the claimant were serious in nature. Obviously he deserves to be compensated reasonably.
8. It is well settled that award of compensation in such cases has to be more as compared to fatal cases, since in the former case, the amount of compensation is for suffering of the injuries and the injured has to bear the pain throughout the remaining period of his life and has to utilise the compensation for himself. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that compensation for personal injuries in this case deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000.00. So far as mental pain and suffering is concerned, if one looks at the background of the case, particularly nature of injuries, 5 times surgical interventions, additional apparatus used for support, the claimant must have undergone serious mental pain and suffering during the course of treatment.
Therefore, compensation under this head is increased to Rs. 20,000.00. So far as expenditure on medicines is concerned, we find large number of documents on the file which support the case of the claimant for expenditure on medicines/ treatment. These documents are from Gokuldas Hospital, Indore. Apart from these documents, Exs. P-18 to 152 show expenditure on medicines and various pathological tests undertaken by the appellant for treatment. On the basis of these documents, the conclusion arrived at by the Claims Tribunal that the claimant did not furnish all the prescribed chits of treatment, is not justified, It is nobody’s case that the claim is false, nor is it anybody’s case that medicines were purchased by the claimant do not pertain to the treatment undertaken by him. Therefore, it was not proper for the Tribunal to reject these documents placed by the claimant before the Claims Tribunal for seeking expenditure on his treatment. Consequently, compensation for treatment is enhanced to Rs. 88,326.00 from Rs. 50,000.00 awarded by the Tribunal. We do not see justification for enhancement of compensation against items like special diet Rs. 3,000.00 and Rs. 20,000.00 for loss of earnings and Rs. 4,500.00, for additional apparatus.
9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the claimant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,35,826.00 instead of Rs. 1,13,000,00 awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation.