Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1060 (MP)

Ram Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Tiwari

2002-12-03

S.K.KULSHRESTHA, UMANATH SINGH

body2002
ORDER Kulshrestha, J. 1. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded by the Fourth MACT Chhatarpur, in Claim Case No. 55/2000 by Award dated 29.3.2001, the appellant (claimant) has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The appellant had filed an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal on the ground that on 18.1.1999 while he was traveling in a jeep bearing registration No. MP-16A-6062, the same met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver (respondent No.2) resulting in severe injuries to the appellant. In addition to various other injuries the appellant also sustained fracture of femur for which he remained confined as an indoor patient in Triveni Hospital, Jabalpur. The appellant, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs.13,25,500/- jointly and severally from the owner, driver and the Insurance Company. The Claim Tribunal, on appraisal of the evidence adduced before it, awarded a sum of Rs.33,000/- with 9% interest from the date of the application. The appellant has, therefore, filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of the evidence brought on record, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the amount claimed by the appellant and the amount awarded by the Tribunal was grossly inadequate. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has, per contra, submitted that in view of the evidence of the claimant himself, the compensation was reasonable and did not call for any enhancement. None has appeared for the owner and the driver. 3. The only question which has been urged in the present appeal is whether-the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal deserved to be enhanced. The appellant examined himself as AWL He deposed before the Tribunal that he had spent about Rs.22,000/- to Rs.23,000/- on his treatment inclusive of the fees paid to the medical practioner. The Claims Tribunal has considered all the documents produced as Ex. P-1 to P-31 and the oral evidence adduced in this behalf and awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The amount awarded for the amount spent by the claimant on his treatment is, therefore, reasonable and does not call for any enhancement. 4. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant towards pain and sufferings. P-1 to P-31 and the oral evidence adduced in this behalf and awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The amount awarded for the amount spent by the claimant on his treatment is, therefore, reasonable and does not call for any enhancement. 4. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant towards pain and sufferings. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of this Court in Pusuva v. Laxman and others [ 1999 ACJ 1362 ] in support of his contention that where the injured suffered a permanent disability of 65% and was not able to work, run and sit, he was awarded Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- for loss of expectation of life. In the present case, there is no evidence to show that on account of the injury, the appellant has suffered any disablement. The appellant has, on the contrary, resumed normal life. However, considering the long hospitalisation of the appellant from 19.1.1999 to 3.2.1999 and the pain and sufferings caused on account of the fracture sustained by him, the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded appears quite inadequate to compensate him there for. We, accordingly, find that a sum of Rs.10,000/- would be just and proper in this behalf. 5. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards conveyance charges to the appellant for going from Chhatarpur to Jabalpur in a jeep. The evidence in this behalf has not been appreciated from proper perspective. It has come in evidence that the appellant had to go to Jabalpur for treatment 5-6 times and each time, he had to pay Rs.2,000/- as taxi charges. There was no rebuttal of this evidence and the receipts had also been exhibited. In view of this evidence, the appellant should have been granted at least Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance charges for going to Jabalpur for his treatment. 6. The Claims Tribunal has not taken note of the fact that the appellant had also suffered loss of income for the period he was prevented from attending to his duty. The appellant was unable to discharge his normal duties for six months. Though the appellant has stated that he was earning Rs.100/- per day, no evidence has been brought on record to substantiate this oral statement. The appellant was unable to discharge his normal duties for six months. Though the appellant has stated that he was earning Rs.100/- per day, no evidence has been brought on record to substantiate this oral statement. However, considering that he was working as a compounder, it can be assumed that he had sustained a loss of income of Rs.1,000/- per month and considering that he was prevented from discharging his duties for a period of six months, he deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- as damages for this period. The Claims Tribunal has awarded to the appellant a sum of Rs.25,000 + 5,000/- + 2,000/- + 1,000/- = 33,000/- which accordingly deserves to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-' + 10,000/- + 10,000/- + 1,000 + 6,000/- = Rs.52,000/-. The claimant would. thus, be entitled to a sum of Rs.52,000/- with S.I. @ 9% from the date of the application as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay this amount to the appellant. This appeal is, thus, partly allowed with no order as to costs.