- (1.) The Insurance company has challenged the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in its award dated 27.11.2007 in MACP No.916/2006. The opponent claimant aged about 67 years at the time of accident while crossing the road was knocked down by the motorcycle insured by the appellant insurance company. He sustained fracture of the leg, had to be hospitalised. He was operated upon. He was confined to bed for extended period. He filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5 lacs from the opponents. The Claims Tribunal considered his income at Rs.10,000/ per month, applied 17% of disability agreed by both the sides and awarded a total of Rs.2,91,200/ as under : Rs.1,63,200/ towards future loss of income Rs.3000/ towards special diets Rs.3000/ towards transportation charges Rs.3000/ towards attendant charges Rs.4000/ towards Court attendance Rs.10,000/ towards pain, shock and suffering Rs.80,700/ towards medical expenses Rs.25,000/ towards future operation exp Rs.2,91,200 Total compensation
(2.) The claimant was examined at exh.20. He pointed out the manner in which the accident took place. He deposed that after retirement as an engineer from Narmada project on the basis of his experience, he was working with one Bholasing construction company as a consulting engineer and receiving Rs.15000/ per month by way of salary. He could however, not produce appointment letter. Regarding injury he stated that he had a compound fracture of femur. He had to undergo an operation and had been advised complete bed rest for six months. The injury left permanent disability. He was unable to stand for a long time, sit cross leg or squat. Injury also hindered his daily pursuit. Dr. Maheshkumar Pandya was examined at exh.30. He had given disability certificate and assessed it at 17% of the body as a whole. Injury certificate was produced exh.31. He had also produced hospital bills of Rs.78000/ towards treatment. One Kishore Deshmukh of Bholasingh construction company was examined at exh.39. He deposed that the claimant was working as a site supervision engineer. The company was engaged in construction work. The claimant was paid salary of Rs.15000/ per month. He produced salary certificate at exh.40.
(3.) From the above evidence, it can be seen that the claimant was aged about 67 years on the date of accident. He was a retired consulting engineer. At such stage, his ability to be involved in active gainful activity would ofcourse, be considerably reduced. Without any documentary proof of such gainful employment after retirement, even accepting salary of Rs.10000/ per month at the relevant time, was on the higher side. At the same time, I cannot lose sight of the fact that with better medication, the longitivity and health having generally improved, it is not impossible to accept a person otherwise in good health to pursue gainful employment even at an advance stage. The claimant himself was a qualified engineer and retired after years of experience in construction projects. I would therefore, not discard his gainful employment altogether. But in absence of any better proof, take his salary at Rs.5000/ per month from such supervision work. Disability of 17% would work out to Rs.850/ per month (Rs.5000/x17%) or Rs.10,200/ per annum(Rs.850/x12). Adopting multiplier of 5 as suggested by Sarla Verma(Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, his future loss of income would come to Rs.51,000/(Rs.10,200/x5).;