Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 41 (RAJ)

Suresh Kumar v. Chhitar

2003-01-10

KHEM CHAND SHARMA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - The above eight appeals, 4 by the owners of the vehicle and 4 by the claimants arise out of one and the same judgment/award dated 23.5.1997 and therefore, they are being decided by a common judgment. 2. On 3.8.1988, Truck No. RNV 9844 met an accident due to rash and 5 negligent driving of the driver of the said truck. Three persons, namely, Sheo Narayan, Chhotu and Sua who were sitting in the said vehicle died and 17 persons sustained injuries in the accident. In all claim petitions, 3 on behalf of legal heirs of the deceased and 17 on behalf of others came to be filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The claim petitions were registered as Petitions No. 109/88 to 128/88. 3. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions No. 114, 117, 118, 119 & 124 of 1988 filed by the injured persons on the ground that neither the claimants presented themselves before the Tribunal nor the injuries alleged to be sustained by them in the accident could be proved. The claimants in the above petitions have not challenged the award. Likewise, against the award passed in claim petitions No. 110, 112, 115, 116, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 127 & 128 of 1988 the claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement of award amount. 4. The owner of the vehicle in question has challenged the award passed by the Tribunal in claim petitions No. 109, 111. 113 & 126 of 1988 through Misc. Appeals, which came to be registered Misc. Appeals No. 762/97, 763/97, 764/97 and 765/97. The appellant in these appeals has challenged the award on the ground that the Tribunal has illegally held responsible the owner of the vehicle to make payment of the award amount. The appellant (owner of the vehicle) has prayed that liability of paying the award amount should be fastened on the Insurance Company. The claimant-appellants No. 5 to 8 (who are respondents in the appeals filed by s the owner of the vehicle) have filed appeals No. 1112/97, 1113/97, 1114/97 and 4/99 for enhancement in the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 5. I would first take up the appeals No. 762/97, 763/97, 764/97 & 765/97 filed by the owner of the vehicle in question. 6. 5. I would first take up the appeals No. 762/97, 763/97, 764/97 & 765/97 filed by the owner of the vehicle in question. 6. In claim petitions No. 109, 111, 113 and 126 of 1988, out of which these four appeals arise, the claimants have alleged that deceased Sheo Narayan, Chhotu and Sua and injured Bhawana boarded in the truck as passengers after paying fare for the journey, but in their statements, the claimants have deposed that the deceased and injured Bhawana boarded in the truck in the capacity as labourers. It appears from the award under challenge that learned Judge of the Tribunal, after considering the variance between the pleadings and the proof, held that the claimants could not prove that deceased and injured Bhawana were either labourers or fare paying passengers and consequently, passed the award against the owner and driver of the vehicle and the Insurance Company as absolved from the 20 liability to make payment of the award amount. Having gone through the award and the evidence on record, I am of the firm view that the above finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. 7. To proceed further, it may be stated that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force with effect from 1.7.1989. In the case in hand the accident took place in the year 1988. Therefore, the Act of 1988 being not in force in 1988, the question as to fixing of liability of the insurance company for payment of award amount has to be considered and decided with reference to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1939'). The legal question that emerges for consideration in these four appeals of the owner of vehicle is as below: "Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation on account of death or bodily injury of the gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods vehicle, under the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939." 8. The provisions of Section 95 of the Act of 1939 were considered by the Apex Court in Mallawwa (Smt.) & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. The provisions of Section 95 of the Act of 1939 were considered by the Apex Court in Mallawwa (Smt.) & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 403 and it was held that: "What is important to be noted is that the legislature, after providing generally in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) in wide terms so as to include "any person" and every motor "vehicle" within its sweep, carved out a certain exception by adding a proviso to that clause. By proviso (ii), it restricted the generality of the main provision by confining the requirement to cases where "the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment". In the absence of the proviso, the main provision would have included all classes vehicles including goods vehicles and all passengers whether carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment or otherwise. That is the reason why there is a reference to different classes of "goods vehicle". The words "any person" in the main provision would have included the employee of the person insured, and therefore, an exception was made by enacting proviso (i) so as to restrict liability of the insurer in respect of his employees". 9. The Apex Court further held: "Again turning back to proviso (ii), we find that it in clear terms restricted the scope of the main provision by confining its application to that vehicle which is "a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment." In the first instance, the vehicle had to be a vehicle of that class in which passengers were carried. If that was not the intention of the legislature, it would not have used the phraseology "the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried" and would have simply provided, that "except where passengers are carried for hire or reward " So also the compulsory coverage was not intended for all passengers and, therefore, it was provided that "passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment." Thus, the confinement of the operation of the main provision was in respect of vehicles and also passengers and that was consistent with the English law on which Section 95 was based.- 10. The Apex Court reiterated the same view in Ramesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2001 WLC (SC) Civil 856 : (2001) 6 SCC 713 as reproduced below: "Category I cases are all in which a claim petition has been filed by the claimants on account of death or bodily injuries of either the owners or their representative or the gratuitous passengers. In all these cases the claimants claimed compensation WS. 95(1)(b) and Clause (ii) of the proviso after its amendment in 1969 under the old Act. The submission is, it is the Insurance Company, which is liable to pay the compensation notwithstanding that the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods vehicle." 11. Therefore, the Apex Court while interpreting Section 95(1)(b)(i) and proviso (ii) of the Act of 1939, held that only a vehicle which is used for systematically carrying passengers can be said to be a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward and hence the persons travelling in a goods vehicle, whether owners of the goods or passengers on payment of fare or gratuitous passengers could not be covered by proviso (ii) and consequently, the insurer of the goods vehicle is not liable to pay compensation. 12. In the case at hand, the claimants could not prove that they were engaged as labourers on the truck and the Tribunal, on the basis of evidence on record, concluded that the persons travelling in the vehicle were gratuitous passengers. In this view of the matter and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as aforesaid, it must be held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation under section 95 of the Act of 1939. In this view of the matter and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as aforesaid, it must be held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation under section 95 of the Act of 1939. 13. However, from a perusal of the record, it appears that in the Policy (Ex.A/1) there is a clause under the heading "Avoidance of certain terms and rights of recovery" which reads as under: "Nothing in this policy or any Endorsement hereon shall affect the right of any person indemnified by this policy or any other person to recover an amount under or by virtue of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, Section 96. But the insured shall repay to the Company all sums paid by the Company which the Company would not have been liable to pay but for the said provisions." 14. Considering the provisions of Section 96 of the Act of 1939 as also the Avoidance Clause of the Policy and placing reliance on the judgment referred in AIR 1964 SC 1736 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cheruvakkara Nafeesu, 2001 WLC (SC) C 1121 : AIR 2000 SC 4535 held as under: "In the facts and circumstances of this case we find that despite holding the liability under the policy limited to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. the Claims Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in directing the appellant company to pay the whole of the awarded amount to the claimants on the basis of the contractual obligations contained in clauses relating to the liability of the third parties and avoidance clause." 15. Again in New India Insurance Co. Shimla v. Kamla, 2001 WLC (SC) Civil 481 : (2001) 4 SCC 342 , the Apex Court held as under: "A reading of the proviso to sub-section (4) as well as the language employed in sub-section (5) would indicate that they are intended to safeguard the interest of an insurer who otherwise has no liability to pay any amount to the insured but for the provisions contained in Chapter XI of the Act. This means, the insurer has to pay to the third parties only on account of the fact that a policy of insurance has been issued in respect of the vehicle, but the insurer is entitled to recover any such sum from the insured if the insurer were not otherwise liable to pay such sum to the insured by virtue of the conditions of the contract of insurance indicated by the policy." 16. Their Lordships further held: "To repeat, the effect of the above provisions is this : when a valid insurance policy has been issued in respect of a vehicle as evidenced by a certificate of insurance the burden is on the insurer to pay to the third parties, whether or not there has been any breach or violation of the policy conditions. But the amount so paid by the insurer to third 30 parties can be allowed to be recovered from the insured if as per the policy conditions the insurer had no liability to pay such sum to the insured." 17. Keeping in view the law propounded by the Apex Court in the above two cases, it must be held that the amount of award/compensation is to be paid by the respondent Insurance Company, but the amount so paid by the Insurance Company can be recovered by it from the insured. 18. In view of above discussions, the appeals No. (1 to 4) filed by the owner of the vehicle in question stand decided in the manner indicated herein above. 19. Now I shall take up the four appeals (5 to 8) separately, filed by the claimants for enhancement in the amount of award/compensation.1. Appeal No. 1112/97 : 20. In this appeal, the age of deceased Sua at the time of accident was 25 years. It has come in evidence that though deceased was married but his 45 wife never lived in his company. Therefore, the parents (claimants No. 1 & 2) were the only persons dependent on deceased Sua. The learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record, assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs.1,000/- and held that dependency of the claimants cannot be more than Rs 200/- p.m. Having assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs.200/- 50 and considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of and awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation. It is surprising to note that as to how and why the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 25. There is no provision in the Act as regards application of the multiplier of 25. As per the Second Schedule appended to the Act, 18 is the maximum multiplier to be applied. Similarly, it has not assigned any reason while assessing dependency at Rs.200/- p.m. 21. It is well settled that multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a just compensation so as to keep uniformity and certainty while passing the award. The multiplier method is the appropriate method and a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and in very exceptional cases. It is not in dispute that deceased Sua, at the time of his death, was earning Rs.1,000/- per month. As per the evidence on record, though the deceased was married, but his wife had left him and she never lived with her husband and therefore, it can well be said that his own expenditure cannot be more than ⅓rd of his monthly income. Thus if ⅓rd his monthly earning is deducted, the amount which the deceased could have contributed to his parents comes to the tune of Rs.650/-. As such the finding of the Tribunal to the extent of assessing the dependency at Rs.200/- p.m. is erroneous and per se illegal. The Second Schedule attached to the Act provides the multipliers to be used in reference to the age of the victim of the accident. The Schedule provides that if the age of victim is 20 years, but not exceeding 25 years, the multiplier of 17 would be used and if the age of victim is between 25 and 30 years, the multiplier of 18 would be used. The multiplier of 17 would also be applicable in case the age of victim is above 30 years but not exceeding 35 years. In this view of the matter, without entering into the controversy whether the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 25 years or 35 years, it must be concluded that multiplier to be applied in this case would be 17, inasmuch as the Second Schedule appended to the Act provides that multiplier of 17 would be applicable in both the events, whether the victim was of 15 years of 30 age or was 35 years of age. Therefore, considering the net monthly contribution of Rs.650/- by the deceased to his parents, if the multiplier of 17 is applied, the total loss of dependency with reference to the multiplier of 17 would come to the tune of 650 x 12 X17=1,32,600/. Thus, I award of sum of Rs.1,32,600/- to be paid to the claimants parents as against loss of dependency. 22. The counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants has contended that the claims Tribunal has further fallen into error in awarding only a sum of Rs.5,000/- as against loss of love and affection. According to him, the claimants parents have lost their young son in the accident and as such they have been deprived of love and affection vice versa. In this back-ground, learned counsel submitted that a reasonable sum as may be considered just and proper by this Court may also be awarded to the claimants-parents as against loss of love and affection. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the age of the victim at the time of his death, I think the ends of justice would be met, if the amount of Rs.5,000/- is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- as against loss of love and affection. 23. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants(appellants No. 1 & 2) comes to Rs.1,32,000/- 10,000/- = 1,42,600/-. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.65,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,42,600/-. It is made clear that out of the enhance amount of Rs.77,600/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- be deposited in the FDR in the names of appellants-Chittar and Kali for a period of 5 years in any Nationalised Bank and rest of the amount be paid to them in cash. The claimants shall also be entitled to receive interest and the rate of 12% p.a. on he enhanced amount from the date of claim petition till the realisation of the amount.2. Appeal No. 1113/97 24. This appeal arises out of claim petition No. 113/88 filed by 7 claimants including parents of deceased-Chhotu, who died in the accident. As per the statement of Bheru, father of the deceased. the age of his son Chhotu at the time of death was 20 to 30 years. Appeal No. 1113/97 24. This appeal arises out of claim petition No. 113/88 filed by 7 claimants including parents of deceased-Chhotu, who died in the accident. As per the statement of Bheru, father of the deceased. the age of his son Chhotu at the time of death was 20 to 30 years. The Tribunal has not 1c) recorded specified finding as regards the age of the deceased. However. the post-mortem report, Ex.A/41 mentions the age of the deceased as 12 years. Dr. Shanker Lal who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased was examined in evidence as AW16 and no question was put to this witness as regards the age mentioned in the post mortem report. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the age of deceased, at the time of accident, was 12 years as stated in the post mortem report, Ex.A/41. It has come in evidence that deceased was married but his wife went on 'Nata' after the death of her husband. Therefore. the parents (claimants No. 1 & 2) were the only persons dependent on deceased. The deceased was engaged in loading and unloading stones on the truck and was earning Rs.25/- 301- per day. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of evidence on record, assessed the monthy income of deceased at Rs.1,000/- and held that dependency of the claimants cannot be more than Rs.200/- p.m. Having assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs.200/- p.m. and considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of and awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation. It is surprising to note that as to how and why the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 25, There is no provision in the Act as regards application of the multiplier of 25. As per the Second Schedule appended to the Act, 18 is the maximum multiplier to be applied. Similarly, it has not assigned any reason while assessing dependency of the claimants at Rs.200/- p.m. only. 25. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that deceased Chhotu, at the time of his death, was earning Rs.1,000/- per month. As per the evidence on record, though the deceased was married. but his wife went on 'Nata' after the death of her husband and therefore, it can well be said that his own expenditure cannot be more than ⅓rd of his monthly income. As per the evidence on record, though the deceased was married. but his wife went on 'Nata' after the death of her husband and therefore, it can well be said that his own expenditure cannot be more than ⅓rd of his monthly income. Thus, if ⅓rd of his monthly earning is deducted, the amount which the deceased could have contributed to his parents comes to the tune of Rs.650/-. As such the finding of the Tribunal to the extent of assessing the dependency at Rs.200/- p.m. is erroneous and per illegal. The Second Schedule attached to the Act provides the multipliers to be used in reference to the age of the victim of the accident. The Schedule provides that multiplier of 15 would be applied in case of a victim whose age at the time of accident was up to 15 years. In this case, since the age of the victim has held to be 12 years at the time of fatal accident, the multiplier of would be applied. Therefore, considering the net 45 monthly contribution of Rs.650/- by the deceased to his parents, if the multiplier of 15 is applied, the total loss of dependency with reference to the multiplier of would come to the tune of 650x 12 X 15 = 1,17,0100 (sic 1,17,000/-). Thus, I award a sum of Rs.1,17,000/- to be paid to the claimant parents as against loss of dependency. 26. The counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants has contended that the claims Tribunal has further fallen into error in awarding a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- only as against loss of love and affection. According to him, the claimants parents have lost their young son in the accident and as such they have been deprived of love and affection vice versa. In this back ground, learned counsel submitted that a reasonable sum as may be considered just and proper by this Court may also be awarded to the claimants-parents as against loss of love and affection. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the age of the victim at the time of his death, I think the ends of justice would be met, if the amount of Rs,5.000/- is raised to Rs.10,000/- as against loss of love and affection. 27. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the age of the victim at the time of his death, I think the ends of justice would be met, if the amount of Rs,5.000/- is raised to Rs.10,000/- as against loss of love and affection. 27. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants (appellants No. 1 & 2) comes to Rs.1,17,000/- + 10,000/- = 1,27,000/-. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.65,000/- as awarded by the 15 Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,27,000/-. It is made clear that out of the enhanced amount of Rs.62,000/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- be deposited in the FDR in the names of appellants No. 1 & 2, namely Bheru and Mooli, for a period of 5 years in any Nationalised Bank and rest of the amount be paid to them in cash. The claimants shall also be entitled to receive interest at the 20 rate of 12% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of claim petition till the realisation of the amount.3. Appeal No. 4/99 28. In this appeal, the Tribunal having assessed the dependency of the claimant at Rs.300/- and applying the multiplier of has awarded a total sum of Rs.59,000/- to the appellant-claimant as against loss of dependency and loss of love and affection. There is no dispute that the deceased at the time of his death was earning Rs.1.200/- per month. It appears from the award of the Tribunal that the Tribunal has not assigned any reason whatsoever in assessing the dependency of the claimant dependent at Rs.300/- only. The finding of the Tribunal that the claimant being 25 years of age, he cannot be said to be fully dependent on his deceased father and as such the dependency should be assessed at Rs.300/-, is erroneous being based on no evidence and without any reason. In my considered view, the expenditure that deceased could have incurred for himself cannot be said to be more than ⅓ of his monthly income. If ⅓rd share of the deceased is deducted from his monthly income of Rs.1,200/-, the balance comes to the tune of Rs.800/- and it can be said that he was contributing Rs.800/- per month to his family. Thus the dependency of the claimant is assessed at Rs.800/- per month. If ⅓rd share of the deceased is deducted from his monthly income of Rs.1,200/-, the balance comes to the tune of Rs.800/- and it can be said that he was contributing Rs.800/- per month to his family. Thus the dependency of the claimant is assessed at Rs.800/- per month. The age of the deceased at the time of accident has been held to be 45 years. The post mortem report (Ex.A/40) of the deceased also mentions the age of deceased as 45 years. While computing compensation, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of which in my considered view is just and proper and is in accordance with the Second Schedule appended to the Act. 29. In view of above, the amount of compensation as against loss of dependency needs to be enhanced and re-calculated in terms of dependency assessed at Rs.800/- p.m. and applying the multiplier of 15. Accordingly, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 800 x 12 X 15 = 1,54,000/-. 30. The counsel appearing for the claimants appellants has contended that the claims Tribunal has further fallen into error in awarding a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- only as against loss of love and affection. According to him, the claimant has been deprived of love and affection which he would have received from his father. In this back ground, learned counsel submitted that -1 a reasonable sum as may be considered just and proper by this Court may also be awarded to the claimants parents as against loss of love and affection. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the age of the victim at the time of this death, I think the ends 01 justice would be met, if the amount of Rs.5,000/- is raised to Rs.10,000/- as against loss of love and affection. 31. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be paid to the claimant defiant comes to Rs.1,44,000/- + 10,000/- = 1,54,00 (sic 1,54,0000. Accordingly. the amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,54,000/-. 31. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be paid to the claimant defiant comes to Rs.1,44,000/- + 10,000/- = 1,54,00 (sic 1,54,0000. Accordingly. the amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,54,000/-. It is made clear that out of the enhanced amount of Rs.95.000/-, a sum of Rs.60,000/- be deposited in the FDR in the name of appellant-Prahlad for a period of 5 years in any Nationalised Bank and rest of the amount be paid to him in cash. The claimant shall also be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of claim petition till the realisation of the amount.4. Appeal No. 1114/97 32. As per the claim petition, the claimant-appellant sustained number 20 of injuries on various parts of his body including amputation of left arm of middle ⅓rd of humerus. At the time of accident, the age of the claimant has been stated to be 25 years and his monthly income was Rs.1,000/-. It has been stated in the claim petition, that the appellant claimant remained admitted in the hospital for 22 days for his treatment. He has claimed total compensation to the tune of Rs.1,03,000/- in the following manner: (a) expenditure incurred on treatment 5,000/- (b) expected expenditure in further treatment 4,000/- (c) expenditure on special diet and special attendance 3,000/- (d) loss for the reason of bed rest 2,000/- (e) loss as against permanent disability to the extent of 20% 84,000/- Total Rs. 1,03,000/- 33. The claimant himself has not stated anything about his income. However, undisputedly he was a labourer and therefore, he might be earning at least Rs.1,000/- per month and, therefore, his monthly income is held to be Rs.1,000/-. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and material on record, including the medical evidence, has awarded a sum of Rs 60,000/- as against loss of income due to permanent disability to the extent of 20% and Rs.5,000/- as against expenditure on treatment. The total compensation awarded to the claimant was Rs.65,000/-. 34. AW 16 Dr. Shanker Lal Pratihar had examined the injuries of injured claimant and prepared injury report. Ex.A/1. AW 17 Dr. Narayan Dixit has stated that he got left arm of Bhawani X-prayed. Both these witnesses have not stated anything about the percentage of disability. The total compensation awarded to the claimant was Rs.65,000/-. 34. AW 16 Dr. Shanker Lal Pratihar had examined the injuries of injured claimant and prepared injury report. Ex.A/1. AW 17 Dr. Narayan Dixit has stated that he got left arm of Bhawani X-prayed. Both these witnesses have not stated anything about the percentage of disability. However, it is evident from as Ex.A/2 that left arm of Bhawani was amputated at middle ⅓rd of numerous and therefore, I have no option but to rely on the averments made in the claim petition, in which claimant himself has stated that as a consequence of amputation of left arm he sustained permanent disability to the extent of 20%. 35. From the award of the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal has not so applied any multiplier and has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/-. The claimant himself has stated that as a consequence of amputation of his left arm he suffered loss in income to the extent of 20%. If this loss is calculated in terms of claimant's monthly income i.e. Rs.1,000/-. the loss comes to the tune of Rs.200/- per month. As per the medical evidence the age of the complainant at the time of amputation of his left arm, was 35 years. At the age of 35 years, the multiplier to be applied would be of as per the Second Schedule appended to the Act. In this view of the matter, if the amount of compensation as against loss of income is to be calculated, the total sum comes to Rs.220 x 12 X17 = 40,800/- against which the Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. Undoubtedly, the claimant can be held liable to receive compensation only to the extent of Rs.40,800/- as against permanent disability, as per his own stand. But since the Tribunal has already assessed Rs.60,000/- as against permanent disability, to be paid to the claimant, therefore, I do not consider it just and proper to disturb the finding of the Tribunal to this extent. 36. Apart from compensation of Rs.60,0001- on account of permanent disability, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- as against the total claim of 19,000/- under different heads viz., medical expenditure, pain and suffering etc. 36. Apart from compensation of Rs.60,0001- on account of permanent disability, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- as against the total claim of 19,000/- under different heads viz., medical expenditure, pain and suffering etc. Having gone through the evidence ocular as well as documentary, I consider it just and proper to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- as against medical expenditure and Rs.5,000/- as against pain and suffering. It has also come in evidence that claimant remained hospitalised for a period of 22 days and therefore, award of Rs.1,000/- would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 37. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant appellant comes to the tune of Rs.60,000/- + 5,000/- + 5,000/- + 25 1,000/- = 71,000/-. 38. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.65,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.71,000/-. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to make payment of the enhanced amount of Rs.6.000/- to the claimant-appellant along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of claim petition till the amount is paid to the claimant. 39. All the appeals stand decided in the manner indicated above.All Appeals Disposed of in Manner indicated. *******