VERMA, J. - (1.) THE present Misc. Appeal has been preferred challenging the award dated 19. 7. 2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur City in MACT case No. 36/98 whereby the claimant injured has been awarded the compensation of Rs. 2, 07, 000/- on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident occurred on 22. 1. 98 when the bus of the Corporation No. RJ. 14/p-2731 hit the claimant when the injured was taking tea at th tea - stall. He was admitted in hospital and his right leg was amputated under the knee. THE bus was being driven negligently and rashly by the Driver. THE FIR No. 31/98 was registered against the driver. THE claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70%.
(2.) AFTER framing the required issues in regard to accident, negligence and quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered the statements of witnesses and the documents including FIR, site plan, injury report, charge sheet, certificate of permanent disability, and other documents. It was held by the Tribunal that the bus was being driven by the driver of the bus of RSRTC with very high speed, negligently and rashly and caused the accident. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- for permanent disability, Rs. 5,000/- for treatment, Rs. 1,200/- for fair and Rs. 800/- for loss of salary. As such the total compensation Rs. 2,07,000. 00 has been awarded. Counsel for the appellant submits that there was no reason for the Tribunal for awarding higher compensation only for the amputation of right leg under the knee. In any case it cannot be disputed that earning capacity of the claimant had been reduced as he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70%, if not more. Apart from the fact, the injured had suffered injury, remained hospitalised, had spent heavy amount for treatment and right leg had been amputated under the knee. In case of R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1), the Apex Court had held that the compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in further; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i. e. , on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i. e. , on acco- unt of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.
(3.) IN case of Dr. Gop Ramchandani vs. Onkar Singh (2), on account of 50% permanent disablement Rs. 3,00,000/- were awarded as nonpecuniary special damages, wherein the injured suffered amputation of one leg. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned award, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award. In view of the above discussion the submission of appellant is not acceptable that the Tribunal has awarded any high compensation. The accident had been caused because of negligence of the driver of bus of RSRTC. The award is based on oral and documentary evidence. There is no merit in the miscellaneous appeal. However, the observations made in this order shall not effect the merits of any other appeal, if any filed by claimant. ;