JUDGMENT
P.K. Bahri, J.
(1) This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which he awarded Rs. 33,000.00 as compensation to the appellant.
(2) Facts of the case are not in dispute that appellant had suffered multiple fractures in the right leg and he remained a patient confined to the hospital for about three months and some treatment also continued till about the date of the filing of the petition. The accident had taken place on 13.2.76 at about 5.15 P.M. The appellant was going on his motor cycle No. Hrc 3823 from his office to his house and when he reached near Naraina Over Bridge, a truck Dll 9230 driven by Gopi Ram in a rash and negligent manner had caused the accident. As these findings are not in dispute before me, so only question which has been argued before me is that the compensation awarded to the appellant is on a very low side.
(3) It appears that the medical evidence produced before the Tribunal, particularly the Certificate issued by the doctor, Ex. Public Witness 3/1, dated April 3, 1979 shows that the appellant was operated for fracture shaft femur right with secondary infection and there was stiff knee following the accident. Manipulation of the knee was done on 31.7.76 under a general anaesthesia and after he was discharged on 7.8.76, he was again admitted on 31.9.77 for sequester to my and removal of the nail from the right femur and ultimately, he was discharged on 10.10.77 and it was certified that the appellant is having stiff knee joint with a range of motion 0-30 degree and there is permanent physical impairment of the knee joint. The doctor, coming as Public Witness 3, had proved the Certificate and had in crossexam. stated that if the appellant undergoes certain physical exercises, as advised, his permanent physical impairment can be reduced by 5 to 10% from 35%.
(4) The appellant was earning Rs. 1.278.00 salary as he was working as Chief Cashier at the relevant time with the Punjab & Sind Bank and was aged 28 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000.00 to the appellant for his having suffered pain on account of this injury, Rs. 8,000.00 on account of loss of earning and Rs. 5,000.00 as special damages on account of medicines and treatment and the charges of conveyance for getting the treatment and he awarded Rs. 10,000.00 for his having this permanent injury. The Tribunal has kept in view that permanent impairment is likely to get reduced by 5 to 10 degrees, as opined by the said doctor.
(5) Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that because of the said permanent impairment of the knee. the appellant would not be in a position to drive any vehicle and had to take recourse to public transport i.e. by taxi or three-wheeler scooter for getting to not only for his place of work but for his social visits also. He has argued that keeping in view the fact the appellant was young man and was not married at that time and was holding a very good position in the Punjab & Sind Bank, this permanent injury to his knee has had obviously dimmed his prospects regarding marriage.
(6) He has also referred to Anugrah Sharma vs. Balbir Singh, 1992 (I) A.C.J. 284 where the claimant who was also aged 28 years and was drawing only Rs. 600.00 p.m. as salary had his leg shortened by 3/4 inches in an accident and he was awarded in all Rs. 1,00,000.00 as compensation. He has argued that the case of the appellant is comparable to the case of the said claimant whereas the claimant was having better earning capacity than the claimant in the said case.
(7) As far as earning capacity of the appellant is concerned, I do not think it has been impaired in any manner by this injury. The appellant was only working as Cashier which requires performing of job by sitting on the desk and there is not even remote possibility that this injury would have any adverse effect on his promotion chances or on his ability to work in an efficient manner.
(8) Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, has contended that this Court should not interfere with the assessment of the compensation by the Tribunal. He has relied upon Stale vs. Vijayakumaran Nair, 1982 A.C.J. 451 where the Kerala High Court had, relying on a judgment of privy council, held that there are two grounds of interference which are that the Judge had acted on a wrong principle of law and that he had made an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages, only then the appellate Court could interfere with the award of the compensation by the Tribunal. There is no dispute about the principles on which the appellate Court should or should not interfere with the award of the compensation by the Tribunal.
(9) He has also cited Uma Shankar vs. Mm. Corp. Indore, 1983 A.C.J. 545 where a Single Judge had awarded only Rs. 15.000.00 to a claimant who suffered the permanent disability of shortening of the leg. 1 find, from the perusal of that judgment that the claimant in that case was earning only Rs. 200.00 p m. as his salary. Facts of no two cases can be similar while assessing the damages or compensation which should be awarded in such like cases.
(10) Lastly, he has also referred to Ebrahim Fakir vs. Sitaram 1990 (I) A.C,J. 465 where D.B. of Bombay High Court had held that after all, every disability cannot affect the earning capacity of a person. For instance, a minor injury in the leg may be vital for a football or a hockey player, for an engineer or a mechanic or a driver, but it may not be so for an officer who does table work. In the present case, I have already held that this injury has not in any manner reduced the capacity or efficiency of the appellant to perform his duties as an officer in the bank.
(11) Counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to Dr. Gop Ramchandani vs. Onkar Singh, 1993 (I) A C.J. 577 where a Single Bench had awarded compensation keeping in view the different heads under which the compensation is to be awarded. Again, there is no dispute about the principles on which the compensation is to be awarded on different accounts.
(12) Keeping in view the facts of the case of Anugrah Sharma (supra), the overall compensation which should have been awarded to the appellant in my view should be Rs. 50,000.00 because the facts in that case are somewhat distinguishable because there the leg of the injured person was shortened but here there is no such disability. The. only disability which the appellant is suffering is in moving his knee joint to some extent.
(13) In view of the above discussion, I allow the appeal and modify the award of the Tribunal and grant Rs. 50,000.00 as compensation and also grant interest @ of 12% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till payment on the enhanced amount. The whole amount is recoverable from the Insurance Company.
