S. Awasthy, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful claimant in Claim Case No. 7 of 1976 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnadgaon decided on 16-1-1978. The evidence has been recorded in Claim Case No. 4 of 1976. The accident which took place on 23-11-1975 by bus No.CPS 8937, belonging to the non-applicant No. 1, resulted in 4 Claim Case Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 of 1976. The award with reasoning was passed in Claim Case No. 4 of 1976,
2. The appellant has claimed Rs. 48,200/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. We have held in Misc. (First) Appeal No. 193/78 and Misc. (First) Appeal No. 110 of 1978 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the jrespondent no. 1 in not putting a serviceable tyre on the right front wheel of the bus no. CPS 8937. Hence, the respondents have been made liable to pay compensation.
3. We, therefore, proceed to assess the amount of compensation payable to the appellant. The claim in such cases is generally considered under the following heads:
A pecuniary loss:
(i) expenses incurred because of injuries;
(ii) loss of earning or profits;
(iii) from the date of the accident till the date of trial;
(b) prospective loss.
B. Non-pecuniary loss:
(i) pain and suffering;
(ii) loss of amenities of life;
(iii) loss of expectation of life.
The Court has also to take note of the existing circumstances not only with regard to the economic conditions of the country, but also social standard of living of the claimant. The award should also not be out of line with a discernible trend or pattern of awards in reasonably comparable cases. The Tribunal cannot award general damages in excess of the amount claimed by the claimant.
4. In an action for personal injuries, the damages are always divided into two main parts-special damages and general damages. The special damage has to be specifically pleaded and proved. This consists of the pecuniary loss as stated above. They are capable of substantial calculation. Then there is the general damage which the law implies and is not specially pleaded. This includes Case B as stated in para 3 above and may not be specifically pleaded.
5. The claimant is serving as Senior Supervisor (Civil) in the Bhilai Steel Project, Bhilai. He was drawing basic salary of Rs. 691/- and other allowances at the time of accident. He sustained compound fracture in his left leg with several minor injuries on his person. After the accident, he was admitted in Khairagarh hospital and later on from 24-11-1975 in Bhilai Steel Project Hospital. He was declared unfit to work till 31-8-1976 i.e. for about 10 months. He claimed Rs. 11,2 JO/- for loss of his earning during the said period, Rs. 2,000/- for medicines etc. and Rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering. He also claimed Rs. 20,000/- towards the loss of chances for promotion.
6. Dr. J.B. Niyogi (AW 3), Orthopaedic Specialist of the Main Hospital Bhilai deposed on 28-4-1977 that the claimant was under his treatment from 24-11-1975. According to him, he sustained injuries on both the lower limbs. The tibia and fabula bones of the left leg were fractured and the lower end of tibia on the right ankle was also found fractured. He was operated on 7-4-1976. Though he was discharged on 30-1-1976, he was re-admitted on 2-3-1976 to 11-3-1976; from 3-4-1976 to 24-4-1976, 15-6-1976 to 23-6-1976 and from 31-7-1976 to 10-8-1976, His complaints are not over even till the date of deposition of Dr. JB Niyogi (AW 3). The fractured bones were fixed with the help of intra-modulatory stainless steel rod and some pieces of bone from his hips were grafted over the fractured area. The plaster which was put was discarded on 7-10-1976. He was under plaster and also on traction even prior to 7-4-1976. His fractured bones were completely united. The witness found restriction of movement of the ankle joint, left side and bending of the left knee joint. He could walk with a limp and had residual swelling under the ankle joint. He was unable to take rapid strides in gait and will have difficulty in negotiating stairs. He proved Ex. A-l, the certificate issued by him on 6-4-1976. The claimant was advised by him to take nutritious and special diet. This witness also proved the X-ray and its report, Exs. A-2 and A-3.
7. The Presiding Judge of the learned Claims Tribunal in paras 33, 34 and 35 of the award has held that the applicant would have been entitled to Rs. 19,330/- as compensation had the claimant proved rashness or negligence of respondent no. 1. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded as compensation on account of pain, suffering and the disability while Rs. 9,330/- as loss of earning capacity. We see no reason to differ from the assessment recorded by the lower Court and, therefore, hold that the appellant is entitled to receive Rs. 19,330/- from the respondents.
8. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and it is ordered that the respondents shall pay to the appellant Rs. 19,330/- as compensation with costs of the trial court as well as of this Court on the said amount. This amount of copensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of this award till the date of realisation. Counsel's fee be fixed as per schedule.