C.M. Lodha, C.J. - (1.) THESE are two connected appeals arising out of the order dated October 19, 1977, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Udaipur by which the learned Tribunal held that there was gross negligence and rashness on the part of the driver Ghisulal who was driving truck No. RJY 3272 on June 26, 1975, at about 2.30 p.m. on the road leading from Agrsen Nagar to military canteen in the town of Udaipur, on account of which the truck dashed against the scooter driven by Vilas Rai. There is no doubt about the fact that the scooter was considerably damaged and the claimant Vilas Rai sustained fractures in his right leg and right arm. According to the statement of Dr. R.P. Bajaj, P.W. 5, Orthopaedist, the lower portion of the leg has become thin and very weak and the claimant cannot walk in the ordinary manner but limps. He has also deposed that the claimant is bound to feel considerable difficulty in climbing stairs. As regards the injury on the arm, he has stated that there has not been complete fusion of the bones in the wrist, the power of which has been reduced to 33 per cent. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 300/ - on account of repairs to the scooter, Rs. 1,500/ - for treatment of the claimant, Rs. 500/ - for mental agony, Rs. 1,700/ - for loss in business during the period of his remaining confined to bed in the hospital, and Rs. 2,000/ - for loss in business in future. The Municipal Council, which owns the vehicle, which caused the accident, has filed an appeal for setting aside the award altogether whereas the claimant has filed an appeal for the enhancement of the amount of award.
(2.) WE may take first appeal No. 16 of 1978, filed by the Municipal Council. There is overwhelming evidence consisting of the statements of A.W. 1 Vilas Rai, and A.W. 2 Abdul Yakub, which unmistakenly goes to show that the truck was coming at a high speed on the wrong side and dashed against the scooter which was on the correct side As a result of the impact, the scooter was thrown away and the rider on the scooter was injured. A.W. 2 Abdul Yaqub, it may be pointed out, is the employee of the police department who was deputed as a traffic controller at the place in question at the relevant time. He made a first information report of the occurrence marked Ex. P. 1 and also prepared the site -plan, according to which the truck was found standing on the wrong side. It is further clear from the statement of P.W. 4 Dr. G.L. Dhad that on examination of the driver Ghisulal soon after the occurrence, it was found that he was drunk inasmuch as foul smell of liquor was emitting from his mouth. On the basis of this evidence, the learned Tribunal, in our opinion, came to the correct conclusion that the accident was caused on account of the negligence and rashness on the part of the driver. Coming to the question of quantum of award, Rs. 300/ - have been awarded on account of repairs to the scooter, to which no exception can be taken, as the scooter is stated to have been badly damaged. The claimant is stated to have remained as an indoor patient in the hospital for a month and a half. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,500/ - on account of his treatment. No detailed account of bills for the treatment has been produced by the claimant to show as to how much amount he actually spent, but regard being had to the fact that he had remained in the hospital for one and a half month and further, the fact that the treatment may have continued even thereafter when he had been discharged from the hospital and regard being had to the price of the medicines, the amount of Rs. 1,500/ - cannot be said to be excessive and the claimant, at the same time cannot ask for increase of this amount. Rs. 500/ - have been awarded on account of mental agony. We see no reason for altering this amount either. The learned Counsel for both the sides have concentrated their argument on the amount of Rs. 2,000/ - awarded on account of loss in future business. The claimant is running a canteen and takes contract for catering. Rs. 1,700/ - have been awarded to him on account of loss in business during the period of his illness and suffering undergone by him on account of this accident. Learned Counsel for the claimant -Appellant has strenuously urged that the amount of Rs. 2.000/ - is wholly insufficient. Mr. B.L. Panwar, learned Counsel for the insurance company, has urged that the amount of Rs. 2,000/ - is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any enhancement. In this connection, we may point out that according to the medical evidence, the claimant has been permanently incapacitated to a considerable extent inasmuch as he can climb a staircase with some difficulty. That is bound to impede his efficiency in the business for the rest of his life. But more than that, he cannot walk properly as a normal person inasmuch as the lower portion of his leg has been badly affected and he will limp throughout his life. Besides the injury to his leg, his arm has also been badly injured and according to the doctor's evidence, its power has been reduced to 33 per cent The claimant was only 33 years old at the time of the accident and according to the average span of life in the country, he is likely to live up to the age of 60 years. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that the amount of Rs. 2,000/ - needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, we enhance it to Rs. 4,000/ -.
(3.) IN the result, we dismiss D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 16 of 1978 filed by the Municipal Council, Udaipur, but partly allow D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 1978 filed by Vilas Rai and enhance the amount awarded to the claimant on account of the loss of business from Rs, 2,000/ - to Rs. 4,00 / -. In other words, the total amount of award is increased from Rs. 6,000/ - to Rs. 8,000/ -. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.;