In assessing compensation for injuries, the court must consider the percentage of impairing of the earning capacity and the quantum of mental and physical pain, and take into account rulings of the High Courts on similar cases.

JUDGMENT :

TITO MENEZES, J.

1. In this appeal the order of the Accidents Claims Tribunal dated July 1, 1977, awarding Rs. 15,000/- to the Respondent by way of compensation, is challenged.

2. The Petitioners were fair enough not to dispute the claim on account, of the accident. They, however, dispute the quantum of Rs. 15,000/- granted to the Respondent by way of compensation.

3. The Respondent was a teacher, 29 years old, unmarried. He suffered fracture of the pelvic bone and sustained an injury to the bladder. He got a permanent defect and his leg socket comes out when he sits on the motor cycle or he lifts his right leg. He, however, continues to drive the motor cycle. His pay is Rs. 272/- as an undergraduate teacher.

4. In the evidence on record, Dr. Arcanjo Menezes who had examined the Respondent has stated that he suffered an injury which will have no effect on his normal life. Dr. Menezes however stated in cross-examination that the Respondent would not be completely cured even with rest. This gives an indication that impairing, if any, was minor. What was the percentage of the impairing of the normal working capacity and earning power of the Petitioner, was not calculated by the Court on the basis of some data.

5. Shri Bharne argues, relying on Dr. C.B. Singh v. The Cantonment Board, Agra 1974 A.C.J. 248 (All.) that in that case an eminent surgeon got his forearm injured as well as the index finger, thumb of right hand and right shoulder, permanently disabling him and the High Court awarded the sum of Rs. 2,000/- for the bodily injuries and a sum of Rs. 3,0C0/- for pain and suffering. He therefore contends that the present compensation granted is exorbitant.

6. Shri D'Sa on behalf of the Respondent argues that the Respondent incurred the expenses of Rs. 150/- for taxis to go to the Goa Medical College for treatment ; that he lost Rs. 300/- being the examination fees he had paid for appearing for the B A. examination ; that if he had obtained a B.A. Degree he would get the pay of Rs. 545/- which was the enhanced salary paid to graduate teachers and he claimed Rs. 5,000/- for the difference of pay between the graduate scale and the non-graduate scale ; that he is entitled to Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering ; and that he was unable to work for two months for which he lost by way of pay the sum of Rs. 540/-.

7. The Respondent has not stated that the B.A. examination fees for which he paid Rs. 300/- had been lost because he did not appear in that year, neither has he stated why he did not appear for the B.A. examination in the subsequent years. The demand of the Petitioner for Rs. 5,000/- by way of difference between the graduate scale and the non-graduate scale is exorbitant. Similarly exorbitant is the demand of Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering for an injury which cannot be said to be major. I say this in view of the trend of the decision of the High Courts on this subject. No medical evidence was led to show the quantum of pain and suffering to enable the Court to assess that quantum with the help of expert evidence.

8. I find that the amount granted is excessive. I would not like however to quantify it in view of the order which I propose to pass.

9. The Claims Tribunal ought to have approached the case from a different angle. It should assess the percentage of the impairing of the earning capacity and the quantum of mental and physical pain. Some items as I have already pointed out were not correctly assessed. Various rulings of the High Courts on similar cases should also be considered.

10. I, therefore, allow the appeal and remand the case to the trial Court to reassess the quantum of compensation paid to the Respondents, in the light of the observations made by me above.