ARVINDBHAI JALUBHAI NAYAKA Vs. MUSTAKALI HUSENBHAI MAKRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the claimant before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara in MACP No.9 of 1994. He had claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the accidental injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident, that occurred on 28/11/1993 on the Bodeli-Dabhoi Highway at about 12:00 noon, near Charola bus-stand sign board, when he knocked down by Tempo bearing No.GJ-6T-6357 while the appellant was proceeding on his vehicle. As a result of the accidental injuries, the appellant's left leg was required to be amputated right from its root. THE age of the appellant at the relevant time was ten years. THE medical evidence indicated that there was no possibility of an artificial limb being adopted by the appellant. THE injuries were of a nature that they were likely to affect the sexual life of the appellant.

(2.) THE Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,88,500/- which includes Rs.30,000/- as compensation under head of pain, shock and suffering. While computing future loss of income, the Tribunal took into consideration the disability of the appellant @ 50% in respect of body as a whole. THE petitioner - appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal dated 21/08/2004 mainly on the count that the compensation awarded under head of pain, shock and suffering is not adequate and; secondly on the ground that the Tribunal erred in assessing 50% disability while computing compensation under head of future loss of income.

(3.) IT is required to be noted that the appellant was aged ten years and was doing nothing; his father is a labourer. Necessary, inference, therefore would be that the appellant could not educate himself till he reached the age of ten and would, therefore have remained illiterate even for the rest of his life and would have engaged himself in labour work. The medical evidence that the disability of the appellant is 100% in respect of the limb, is taken by the Tribunal at 50% in respect of body as a whole, but the Tribunal has overlooked the fact that the appellant, an illiterate man would have been required to engage in labour work only and, therefore, the functional disability would be equivalent to the disability of the limb. No suggestion is put either to the claimant or to the Doctor that the appellant would be engaged in any other work where disability may not come in his way.