- (1.) THE application for impleading the legal representatives of respondent No.2 is allowed and the legal representatives of respondent No.1 are taken on record.
(2.) BOTH the appeals are connected arising out of the same accident for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident. The accident took place on 15.10.1988 when the claimant Giani Ram, who was riding the motorcycle, was returning to his village along with his brother -in -law Maha Ram who was a pillion rider, dashed against the tractor of respondent No.1 bearing registration No.HYM -2881 coming from the opposite direction. Due to the impact both of them fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal has held that the tractor of respondent No.1 was involved in the accident and the liability of satisfying the award was cast on the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.4 before the Tribunal. I have already reversed the finding of the Tribunal and allowed the appeals filed by the insurance company in FAO No.610 and 611 of 1991 giving them right of recovery against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle after satisfying the claim of the claimants.
(3.) THE appeal in FAO No.233 of 1991 has been filed at the instance of claimant Giani Ram aged 28 years, who was working as Beldar on temporary basis in Delhi Municipal Corporation at a salary of Rs. 900/ - per month and was also said to have augmenting his income from agricultural land at Rs. 1,000/ -. He contended that he received serious injuries in the accident and was admitted in Bawal Hospital where he remained hospitalized from 15.10.1988 to 18.10.1988 and from there he was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak upto 02.11.1988. He claimed that he suffered a fracture of left mandible and left leg and operated thrice on leg, wire was tied around his teeth which remained for four months. He had to undergo for follow up treatment twice a month which cost his pocket Rs. 1,000/ - per visit. He produced some vouchers Ex.P17 to P48 and claimed that he spent Rs. 55,000/ - on medicines, conveyance and treatment. He was feeling difficulty in walking, his left leg had become short and he had difficulty in taking his food. The doctor who treated the claimant was examined as PW5 Dr. Mudgil. He spoke to the effect that the injured Giani Ram was admitted in the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak on 19.10.1988 and he was operated for fracture of mandible, tension bend writing was done and condyler plating of left tibia was done which were removed in 1989. On clinical examination, he found that injured was suffering from limitation of motion of left knee joint, limping of gait and wasting of muscles of calf and quadriceps region. Besides, this there was restriction of mouth opening and chewing. He assessed the disability at 45%. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation simply awarded an amount of Rs. 70,000/ - for the period of hospitalization, operation, expenses incurred on treatment, special diet and conveyance without dealing with every head separately. I discard the manner of assessment adopted by the Tribunal and reappraise the compensation. There was a statement by the claimant that he spent about Rs. 55,000/ - for medicines, hospital charges, attendant charges, special diet and conveyance and produced the bills from Ex.P17 to P48. I will provide for the whole amount under the heads mentioned by the injured. The claimant must have suffered pain and suffering for fractures of lateral oondylex of left tibia for which plating was done to reduce the fracture and fracture of mandible for which tension bend wiring was done which were removed after a long time in the year 1989 and therefore, I will provide Rs. 50,000/ - for pain and suffering. The doctor assessed the disability at 45% but there is no mention about the nature of disability whether it is permanent or temporary. It is sure that the claimant would have faced difficulties in leading his routine life on account of disability and therefore, I will provide another Rs. 50,000/ - under the head loss of amenities of life. He was said to be earning Rs. 1900/ - per month. I would take the disability assessed by the doctor at 45% to be 25% for the whole body which would have impaired the earning capacity of the claimant to that extent. I would take the loss of income of the claimant at Rs. 1900/ -, apply a multiplier of 17 for a person who was 28 years old and assess the loss of earning capacity at Rs. 96,900/ - (1900x25/100x12x17). He could not have done anything during the period of his treatment for at least six months for which I will provide Rs. 11400/ - for loss of income. The overall compensation payable shall be Rs. 2,63,300/ -. The amount in excess over what has already been provided by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the manner determined by this Court in FAO No.610 of 1991.;