Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 370 (MP)

Rajendra v. Laxmi Narayan Chouhan

2001-04-25

A.K.MISHRA, RAJEEV GUPTA

body2001
Short Note These two appeals arise out of common award and in the form of cross-appeals with the award passed by Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Multai, district Betul in Claim Case No. 36/96 on 20th December, 1999 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,06,800/- on account of injuries suffered by claimant Rajendra Bachle. Claimant Rajendra Bachle sustained injuries in an accident on Dhar-Indore road which took place on 6.6.1996 near village Galouda while he was travelling in Tempo Trax No. MP-05A/8839 which met with an accident with dumper No. MP-09D/0544, driven by Raju, owned by Laxmi Narayan, insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. As the dumper dashed against the Tempo Trax, claimant Rajendra sustained injuries which caused paralysis on the entire left portion of his body. Claimant/injured claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 67,99,000/-. The plea taken by the owner and the driver of the dumper was that the accident took place owing to negligence of driver of the Tempo Trax, hence, the driver, owner and insurer of the Tempo Trax were necessary patties. Similar plea is taken by the insurer. In addition, it was contended that the driver of the dumper did not possess valid driving licence. The claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident took place owing to rash and negligence driving by Raju, the driver of Jumper. Claimant in his appeal has urged that the amount awarded for permanent disability suffered by him of 70% is grossly inadequate. The same be enhanced. There is overwhelming evidence on record to prove and show the nature of the injuries and permanent disability suffered in the form of paralysis. Considering the age of injured Rajendra (30) at the time of accident, the amount incurred in treatment, the compensation be enhanced. Insurer in its appeal has urged that there was no evidence to establish that the claimant was employed as teacher and he was drawing salary of Rs. 3,200/- and the finding that he could not join his duty for two years owing to the accident is incorrect. The injuries could not be connected with the alleged incident. Taking place of the accident and the negligent driving of dumper by driver Raju is established by Rajendra (PW-1), who has clearly deposed that the dumper was driven in a high speed and dashed against the Tempo Trax. Claimant has filed the documents of criminal case which was registered. The injuries could not be connected with the alleged incident. Taking place of the accident and the negligent driving of dumper by driver Raju is established by Rajendra (PW-1), who has clearly deposed that the dumper was driven in a high speed and dashed against the Tempo Trax. Claimant has filed the documents of criminal case which was registered. Challan was filed. They are from Ex.A-1 to A-9. X-ray report is A-1, Certificate of age has also been filed. There is no evidence in rebuttal led by the insurer. Thus, the negligence of dumper-driver is established by deposition of Rajendra and also he suffered injuries. Injuries in question are also established. As to nature of injury, there are examinations of two Doctors Dr. Lokendra Singh (PW-2) and Dr. Yogesh Gadekar (PW-3). The Court has observed when the claimant was examined on 29.6.1998 after two and half years of the accident, that claimant could not walk himself and was not able to speak properly as he was suffering from paralysis and his speech has been affected. Dr. Lokendra Singh who has examined the claimant and performed radiological examination has deposed that the claimant has suffered paralysis of entire left portion of the body due to head and neck injuries. He has proved the injury report Ex. P-52 based on examination and X-ray A-13. Dr. Yogesh Gadekar has given certificate Ex.A-54. With respect to disability, the Orthopedic Surgeon has deposed that he has found disability to be 70% and has mentioned that the injured could not walk without support. Dr. Yogesh Gadekar (PW-3) has proved his report. There is nothing to disbelieve the statement of Dr. Yogesh Gadekar and also the certificate issued by Dr. Lokendra Singh (PW-2). Thus, in our opinion, the disability of 70% owing to the head injury suffered in the accident has been caused to Rajendra, the claimant. Simply by the fact that in the initial medical report the name of claimant Rajendra has been referred to as Raju, the injury report A-3 cannot be discarded. Since the report was lodged of the incident and the claimant was referred to medical examination by the police since he was unconscious and in cross-examination he has slated that his alias name is Raju. He has been referred to by that name and he has shown to the Court that there is tattooing of his name on hand as Raju. He has been referred to by that name and he has shown to the Court that there is tattooing of his name on hand as Raju. Thus, the stand taken by the insurer that the documents are of different person is unworthy of credence and stand of the insurer is liable to be rejected. The amount which has been awarded by the claim Tribunal on account of injuries suffered by him of Rs. 15,000/- is inadequately low as compared to the injuries suffered by the claimant. The voice of the claimant has been affected adversely. Claimant Rajendra (30) was young at the time of accident. Considering has age, disability of 70%, paralysis suffered and the fact the he was unable to walk independently even after two and half years of the accident in our opinion, on account of disability of 70% suffered by him, with which he will have to bear in his entire life, while upholding the amount of Rs. 15,000/- granted on account of medical expenditure and loss of salary of Rs. 76,800/- for two years, for physical pain and suffering and disability suffered by the claimant the amount of Rs. 15,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 2 lakhs. Claimant has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Nagesha vs. M.S. Krishna and Another, (1998) 1 TAC 459 (SC), in which a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal, which was enhanced to Rs. 6 lakhs for the disablement of 95% suffered by the claimant who was aged about 23 years, at the time of accident in the year 1992. In the instant case, accident took place in the year 1996. Claimant was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. The disability suffered is 70%. Thus, we award total sum of Rs. 2 lakhs for pain and suffering and permanent disability and in addition, the claimant is entitled for sum awarded by the Tribunal of Rs. 15,000/- on account of medical expenses and Rs. 76,800/- for loss of salary suffered by him. Thus, the claimant is entitled for a total sum of Rs. 2,91,800/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. In the result, the appeal - M.A. No. 244/2000 is partly allowed to the extent indicated above and the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs. Thus, the claimant is entitled for a total sum of Rs. 2,91,800/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. In the result, the appeal - M.A. No. 244/2000 is partly allowed to the extent indicated above and the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,91,800/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. The appeal filed by the insurer i.e. M.A. No. 467/2000 is dismissed. Costs on parties.