JUDGMENT
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. This appeal by the injured claimant in a motor accident is for enhancement of the quantum of compensation in respect of the injury suffered by him in the accident.
2. The claimant/appellant was a passenger in a tempo which was involved in the accident. The claimant suffered extensive injuries particularly as resulted in fracture of right femur, fracture of right zygo-matic complex, fracture of nasal bridge, fracture of noso eluamoidal, fracture of mandible and other injuries. He has also suffered injuries to his face. The injured appellant underwent hospitalisation for a long period of 6 months and had to undergo operations in respect of the fracture to his leg. A steel rod has been fixed and for removal of the same he had to undergo further operation. He incurred considerable medical expenses. The claimant was a businessman doing business in manganese ore.
3. The Tribunal after considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the period of hospitalisation, medical expenses incurred etc., awarded compensation as under:
Towards injuries ... ... Rs. 47,000/-
(comprising of Rs. 15,000/- for fracture of femur, Rs. 15,000-for fracture of mandible, Rs. 7,000/- for fracture of nasal bone, Rs. 7,000/- for fracture of Noso eluamoidal and Rs. 3,000/- for two simple injuries)
Towards
medical expenses
Rs. 53,210/-
Towards disability
Rs. 25,000/-
Towards pain and sufferings
Rs. 20,000/-
Towards future medical expenses
Rs. 8,000/-.
4. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 12,000/- for the loss of earnings during the period of 6 months of hospitalisation taking 20% of the earning for the relevant period.
5. The amount awarded also carried interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till payment.
6. Sri Sabhahit, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation for loss of amenities and compensation towards loss of future earnings. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- awarded towards disability by the Tribunal even if it were to compensate for loss of future earnings, is on the lower side and it requires enhancement.
7. Per contra Sri Hegde Mulkhand, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 47,000/-towards injuries and adding a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- for pain and sufferings and on this count itself the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 67,000/- and as such no separate compensation towards loss of amenities is called for. Learned Counsel also submits that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded for the disability also even when it has awarded compensation for each injury and there is no need to award any amount towards loss of future earning. The learned Counsel submits that in the alternative this amount of Rs. 20,000/- can be conveniently categorised under the head “loss of amenities” and as such there is no need to award any separate compensation under the head “loss of amenities”.
8. It is no doubt true that the total compensation awarded under the heads injuries, pain and sufferings and disability adds up to Rs. 92,000/-but we are not inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondent that having regard to the nature of the injuries, the sum of Rs. 47,000/- is on the higher side. The appellant had suffered extensive injuries to his leg, on the face and it is a fact that he had to undergo hospitalisation for the period of 6 months which indicates that the injuries suffered is not only grievous but also for long. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- for pain and sufferings in the circumstances cannot be said to be oh the higher side. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards disability though not indicates as to the loss of future earnings, the Tribunal has awarded this amount in the context of the discussions as to the extent of disability while we are not in agreement to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for modification for awarding any amount towards loss of future earning in favour of the appellant on the premise that such extent of disability could have affected his business, we are also not inclined to reduce or take out the amount of Rs. 25,000/- under the head
disability. The loss in a business if it has to be compensated should have been as a result of the injury and the consequent handicap which directly affects the management of the business. It is also necessary that in the first instance the income from the business should have been proved cogently and then there should be further material to indicate as to what would be the income from that business which has been reduced because of the injury. In the absence of any convincing and cogent material on this aspect either with regard to the exact amount of income or the exact loss of such income we are not inclined to award any amount by applying the principles which are called into aid in determining the loss of future earning in respect of a person who earns income by physical labour and whose bodily injury directly affects the work and earning capacity of such person. The loss attributable due to the physical disability resulting in loss of earning is different from the loss which can be attributed to earning capacity from a business. Any physical disability need not necessarily result in loss of earning from the business and so there is no occasion to apply the same principles. Therefore, we reject the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant was entitled for any amount of compensation under the head “loss of future earning”.
9. At the same time we are conscious of the fact that the extensive injuries has left the appellant crippled for the rest of his life and at any rate it affects his normal functioning and even normal walking of the appellant is affected. There is no doubt that this can have some effect on his business also. But that is not a matter for quantification of compensation. In the circumstances we award a sum of Rs. 30,000/- under the head “loss of amenities and loss of enjoyment in life”.
10. The appellant has also claimed compensation under the head “food and nourishment” during the period of hospitalisation and for other incidental charges. We are of the view that some amount of compensation is necessary and justified under this head. We award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on this head. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is at 6%. In all injury cases this Court has been uniformly allowing the interest at 9%.
11. In the result, in modification of the judgment and award of the Tribunal we enhance the compensation in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by a further sum of Rs. 30,000/- under the head “loss of amenities” and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards food and nourishment and other incidental expenses. The rate of interest is increased to 9% as against 6% awarded by the Tribunal. In all other respects the award of the Tribunal is left undisturbed. The appeal is allowed in part in terms indicated above.