The assessment of compensation in personal injury cases under the Motor Vehicles Act should be reasonable, moderate, and in line with awards in comparable cases.

R.P.SINHA, J.

1. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation the unfortunate applicant has preferred this appeal under S.110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The appellant filed an application under S.111 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal on 25th of January, 1964. According to the statements made in the application, the appellant was the Managing Director of Rare Mineral and Mica Mining Co. (P.) Ltd. and was travelling on 26th of January, 1963 in an ambassador car bearing No. WBB 8126. He was proceeding to Tilaiya on the Grand Trunk Road when a petrol tanker numbered WGH 4650 came from the opposite direction and dashed against the car. As a result of this accident the appellant sustained multiple injuries and became unconscious. He was removed to the Barhi Government Hospital. Since the injuries were serious, the appellant was advised to be taken to an institution where specialised treatment could be given. He was, therefore, ultimately taken to Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, Calcutta-20. He remained in the Clinic from 29th of January, 1963 till 11th April, 1963. It is said that he spent Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) towards his treatment. On these facts a sum of Rs. 4,02,000 was claimed as compensation, the break of which is as follows;

(a) Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/-

(b) Loss of Income Rs. 92,000/-

(c) Incapacity for normal work

and shortening of normal

expectation of life Rs. 3,00,000/-

Total - Rs. 4,02,000/-

3. The truck according to the appellant was insured with Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., but in spite of service of notices, it did not file any written statement. A written statement was, however, filed on behalf of M/s. Suresh Kumar Vinod Kumar, owner of the truck. The defence inter alia was that the claim was hopelessly barred by limitation, and that there was no rashness, negligence or fault on the part of the driver of vehicle No. WGH 4650. The fact that the accident took place on 26th of January, 1963 was admitted, but according to the respondent-opposite party, the petrol tanker was running on a moderate speed, when all on a sudden the car (WBB 8126) came in front of the petrol tanker. In spite of the efforts made by the driver of the tanker, the accident took place as the ambassador car was in very high speed and dashed against the petrol tanker.

4. The Tribunal after condoning delay in filing the application and on a consideration of the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that on account of the accident the appellant received serious injuries, as a result of which his movements became restricted and he could move about only, with the help of crutches. It also held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent conduct of the driver of the petrol tanker. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal held that the appellant had spent Rs. 8,050 towards his treatment, and was entitled to this amount towards medical expenses. It also held that the appellant on the circumstance of the case was entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000 as compensation. Thus a total sum of Rs. 28,050 was awarded.

5. Mr. Sen in support of the appeal first contended that the appellant had to undergo treatment for over a year and during this period he was not able to do any work. He, therefore, sustained a loss of Rs. 92,000 being loss of income. According to Mr. Sen, therefore, the appellant was entitled to Rs. 92,000 under the head loss of income. In that connection Mr. Sen invited our attention to some documents, which I shall presently refer. The first document is Ext. 9, a letter dated 4th January, 1963, written by one Mr. D. R. Moondhra for B. R. Hermin and Mohatta (India) Pvt. Ltd. This letter, in substance, is an offer to the appellant which was accepted by a letter dated 10th of January, 1963, by the appellant. The letter of acceptance is Ex