MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation on account of grievous injury sustained by the appellant-Shri Brij Mohan whose left leg has been amputated due to an accident caused by the vehicle which was insured with the respondent No. 3 National Insurance Company. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur has been pleased to pass an award in his favour to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) only although a finding has been recorded in his favour that he was hit by a tempo which was insured with the respondent No. 3- National Insurance Company Ltd. as a result of which he had to undergo treatment for more than three months and ultimately his leg had to be amputated. The age of the appellant at the time of the accident has been assessed as 66 years although he had asserted that his age was 55 years at the time of accident. The appellant claimed that he was running a `kirana Shop' by which he was earning Rs. 3,000/- to 4,000 per month on an average. The appellant had further claimed that he had to spend approximately Rs. 22,000/- on his treatment. He however did not furnish any bill in this regard but produced the admission ticket which was Exhibit-5 and this indicated that the appellant was admitted into the hospital for ten days and his leg had to be ultimately amputated during this period. Prior to this, the X-ray was done for the fracture sustained by him. The Tribunal therefore passed an award granting a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant for the injury which left him totally incapacitated. The appellant feeling aggrieved with this amount has filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount.
(2.) THE respondent No. 3 National Insurance Company Ltd. However strongly refuted the claim for enhancement of the compensation and on the last occasion it was vehemently argued by the counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, Mrs. Manju Jain that the admission ticket which was produced by the appellant regarding his admission into the hospital for ten days during, which X-ray of his leg was done did not indicate that his leg has been amputated. It was therefore submitted that since there is no proof in regard to amputation of his leg, the claim for enhancement of the compensation should not be entertained. The Tribunal, however, brushed aside this objection on the ground that merely because discharge ticket regarding amputation of the leg has not been produced, it would not negative the factual position that the leg has been amputated. However, the counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company seriously objected to this observation of the Tribunal and submitted that the leg of the claimant has not been amputated, since the discharge ticket was not on record. This obviously was a serious objection but the finding of the Tribunal is also equally weighty enough to counter this as it has been recorded that merely because the discharge- ticket or bed head ticket has not been produced, the fact regarding amputation of the leg cannot be disbelieved. At this juncture, I cannot restrain myself from deprecating the system of the Insurance companies which employs surveyors even for assessing damage done to the vehicle, but when it comes to human beings, they do not have infrastructure of sending a doctor even as its own witness to examine the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim of the accident. If such a system were in existence, flimsy and uncalled-for objections from the Insurance companies could have been drastically curtailed. However, the Insurance companies, as in the instant case, might have the compunction to urge anything which suits their business interest since they are operating under a particular system, but when the Tribunal goes to the extent of recording that the leg of the victim has been amputated, it is certainly not expected of the Insurance companies to refute the version with impunity merely on a technical plea before the appellate court that the victim has not suffered any injury of that kind since the discharge-ticket has not been produced. Besides this, the Insurance companies will have to bear in mind that the proceedings before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is summary in nature where the law of evidence cannot be applied meticulously and strictly to the hilt and hence such victim whose physical status could be verified and proved even by visual examination, objection to the extent of demanding discharge-ticket is certainly not worthy of acceptance or appreciation. Since lot of allegations and counter-allegations were levelled in this case by the counsel for the parties in regard to the injury of the victim-appellant, it was considered just and appropriate to direct the claimant to remain present in person before this Court so that physical status of the appellant/victim could be truely verified. Accordingly the claimant-appellant is present in person before this Court, who himself is more than a solid proof of his physical status and is far-more trustworthy than his discharge-ticket or admission-ticket regarding amputation of his leg below the knee. The assertion, therefore, that his leg has been amputated, stands fully corroborated, whose age has been assessed as more than 65 years. The fact, however, still remains regarding the source of income of the appellant who is running a `kirana Shop' and that cannot be assessed less than Rs. 1500/- per month, which is the minimum income prescribed for assessment in case of non-fatal injury where income is not possible to be assessed even as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (vide amendment introduced in 1994 ). The income of the injured, therefore, on the basis of this principle has to be assessed at Rs. 1500/- per month and considering his physical status he will have to engage the services of an attendant on which he will have to incur expenses of not less than Rs. 1000/- per month.
(3.) ALTHOUGH the case of the appellant technically comes within the head of `partial permanent disablement' yet it is difficult to lose sight of the fact that the net result of his injury amounts to permanent total disablement considering the limitation in normal discharge of functions. Thus the injury suffered by the appellant in terms of percentage of injury is difficult to assess and hence no deduction can be made out of the amount to which he would have been entitled if it were technically a case of total permanent disablement. Thus after applying a multiplier of 5 to the income of the appellant considering his age alongwith the expenses, the figure which is arrived at is Rs. 1,25,000/- which shall be paid expeditiously to the appellant by the respondent-Insurance Company after deducting the amount which has already been paid. The impugned award thus stands modified. The appeal accordingly stands allowed with cost. .;