S. Awasthy, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful claimant in Claim Case No. 3 of 1976 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon 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. C.P.S. 8937, belonging to the non-applicant No. 1, resulted in 5 claim cases Nos. 2, 3, 4 5 and 7 of 1976. The award with reasonings was passed in Claim Case No. 4 of 1976.
2. The appellant has claimed Rs. 47,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. We have held in Misc. (First) Appeal No. 193 of 1978 and Misc. (First) Appeal No. 110 of 1978 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of respondent no. 1 in not putting a serviceable tyre on the right front wheel of the bus No. C.P.S. 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:
(a) pain 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 Class B as stated in para 3 above and may not be specifically pleaded.
5. The claimant is an Advocate and also an agriculturist. He was examined by Dr. S.K. Jain, (A.W. 4), Assistant Surgeon and Orthopaedic Surgeon of Government Hospital, Rajnandgaon. He is an M.S. in Orthopaedic Surgery serving since 1973 at Rajnandgaon. He deposed that on 25-11-1975 at 11.30 A.M. the claimant-appellant was admitted in the hospital for treatment due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. He found that the pelvic bone sustained fracture and the urinary tract had also burst. An X-ray was taken and operation was performed. He had to remain tn the hospital from 25-11-1975 up to 2-12-1975. He was required to attend the hospital every month for the check-up. Urethra and urethral dilatation was done on 14-1-1976 when the claimant appeared in the hospital after his discharge. It was again done on 25-2-1976 and he continued to come for the said process for sufficiently long time, first every month and then quarterly. The urinary tract had shrunk which will cause him such trouble occasionally throughout his life. The claimant had to stay in a private ward and had to purchase medicines from the market. The fracture of the pelvis bone has been mended. A copy of the case history is Ex. A-13 and the discharge certificate, Ex. A-12, The claimant had to pay the operation charges also.
6. The claimant has examined himself as AW 1. He stated that he was admitted in Khairagarh hospital after the accident and was shifted to the main hospital, Rajnandgaon on 25th of November 1973 as he could not urinate and used to become unconscious. He was unable to move because of the fracture in the pelvis. He was operated upon and cathedra was put in the urinary tract. He was lying in one single posture without any movement for a month and was discharged on 28-12-1975. He was advised complete rest for a month. He was required to go to Rajnandgaon for check ups every month. He was given anaesthesia on each occasion when he went for the check-up for 3 months. Thereafter, he was required to go to the hospital quarterly for about 11/2 years. According to him, he is unable to stand for a longer period and feels difficulty in walking. His trouble increases after about 2 months of the previous check. According to him, he spent about Rs. 2,000/- on medicines and fruits etc. which he was required to take in the hospital. He was also required to spend Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- on each visit to the hospital for check. Such visits being about 9 in number. He was under the influence of anaesthesia each time for about 7 to 8 hours. He is practising since 1971 and his monthly income from practice is about Rs. 300/- to Rs. 350/- per month. He has 60 acres of agricultural land for cultivation as well which he used to supervise personally. According to him, he used to earn Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 4,500/- per annum from agriculture.
7. The claimant has also examined Purushottamdas (AW 2), proprietor of the Medical Stores, Rajnandgaon. He proved Exs. A-l to A-ll, the cash-memos according to which he had sold the medicines to Ramakant Pandey for his treatment.
8. Dr. M.K. Naik (AW 5), Assistant Surgeon, Rajnandgaon had taken X-rays of the pelvis bone of Shri Ramakant Pandey on 27-11-1975 and 14-12-1975. He proved Ex. A-14, the X-ray report and Ex. A-15 to Ex. 21, the receipts for the charges. He proved the fracture and the capture of the urinary tract. Ex. A-22 written by Dr. A.R. Dalla was also proved by him.
9. Dr. J.N. Shah, (District Health Officer, Khairagarh was also examined as AW 6. According to him, he was admitted in Khairagarh Hospital for 2 days where he complained of urinary obstruction. On his advice, the claimant was shifted to Rajnandgaon. The condition of the patient, according to him, was serious at that time.
10. Dr. R.S. Dewan, Civil Surgeon, Main Hospital, Rajnandgaon was also examined as AW 7. He proved his writing, Ex. A-13, according to which the claimant was admitted in the Main Hospital, Rajnandgaon. The claimant was operated upon and catheter was put in urinary tract. The pelvis bone was also fractured. Dilatation of the urinary tract was done in the hospital. Even after discharge, the claimant was required to attend the hospital every month and thereafter every quarterly. The claimant was advised not to ride the bicycle. The fracture was not completely mended in a year. There is no time limit fixed for mending the fracture but according to him, the claimant was alright on the date of evidence i.e. 12-3-1977. It is possible that Ramakant Pandey may be required to get dilatation done once in a year. According to him, the claimant would be fit to drive a bicyle after a year or so.
11. The claimant has also examined one Ram Kumar Mishra (AW 8) who proved that the claimant had 60 acres of land in village Mandla which was being cultivated by the claimant himself. Due to the accident, the claimant could not go for personal supervision and had to depend on his servants. This caused him a loss of about 10 Gadas (cart-loads) of paddy. He admitted that every cultivator got less crop because of scanty rains. Due to the claimant's confinement, he could not have proper supervision and control over his servants.
12. The applicant-appellant has also examined AM Lalani (AW 9) who sold one Infrafil bulb on 16-12-1975 for Rs. 110/- and proved Ex. A-23, the cash-memo therefor. The said bulb was required for dithermy. The applicant also examined Brijbhushanlal Shriwastava (AW 10), proprietor of Vijay Medical Stores. He proved Exs. A-24 to A-34 cash-memos for the medicines bought by the claimant for his treatment. Jagdish Prasad (AW 11) proved cash-memos, Exs. A-35 to A-40 of his shop, Jagdish Medical Stores for the medicines sold to the claimant.
13. The learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 500/- only towards the cost of medicines etc. We think that the amount of Rs. 500/- is too less under the circumstances of the case. Though all the vouchers have not been produced yet, it is not improbable that the claimant would have spent Rs. 2,000/- towards fruits, milk etc. and medicines during the period he was hospitalised. We allow the claim of Rs. 2,000/- towards the said head. The Presiding Judge of the Claims Tribunal did not award any amount towards the loss in the agriculture for want of supervision throughout the period. Since the claimant could not supervise his agriculture for two years, it is common knowledge that he must have sustained loss due to that reason. We allow Rs. 2,000/- towards the loss in the agriculture for the period he was unable to properly supervise his agriculture due to the accident i.e. two years. The learned Presiding Judge of the Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 350/- only as compensation for the loss of his practice for one month. This is most inadequate amount under this head. The appellant could not have put his head and heart in the practice for about 7 months and estimating the loss of practice for that period at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month, a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- would meet the ends of justice.
14. No amount has been awarded for the expenses, the claimant had to incur in going to the Main Hospital at Rajnandgaon along with two attendants and also the expenses which his relatives would have to incur in attending on him while he was confined to the hospital. Such expenses are also allowed. We allow Rs. 1,200/- as compensation towards such expenses. The lower Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 500/- towards the agony and suffering of the appellant due to the fracture of pelvis bone and obstruction in the urinary tract. We feel that the amount of general damages is too less under the circumstances of the case. We allow Rs. 10,000/- under this head. Thus, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 17,200/- as stated above.
15. The appeal is allowed. We order the respondents to pay Rs. 17,200/-to the claimant-appellant. The respondents shall pay interest on this amount at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of this order till realisation. The respondents shall pay costs to the appellant of the lower Court as well as of this appeal. Counsel's fee at the scheduled rate on the amount awarded by us be also taxed.