Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1145 (MP)

Rajesh Tamrakar v. Khemchand

2003-10-01

S.K.KULSHRESTHA, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2003
JUDGMENT Kulshrestha, J. -- This Miscellaneous Appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises from the award dated 13.3.1997 of the Second Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Murwara, District Katni, passed in Motor Accidents Claim Case No. 60/93. The claimant/appellant sustained injuries while he was, on 14.3.1989, going on National Highway No.7 by the side of the road near India Hotel. While the appellant was going on the left side of the road, the respondent No.1 came driving the jeep bearing registration No. CPZ 386, rashly and negligently from the opposite direction and collided with the appellant with the result, the appellant sustained several injuries including fracture of right femur which resulted in disability. The appellant, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 2,31,400/- under vatious heads. The Tribunal on analysis of the evidence adduced by the appellant, found that the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 32,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident, directed the respondents to pay the said amount to the appellant with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of award and 12% per annum from the date of award till date of payment. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that considering the injuries received by the appellant and the disablement suffered, the compensation awarded was wholly inadequate and deserved to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the State has, however, submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation which does not call for any interference. According to witness Gopi Krishna, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was spent on the treatment of the appellant in addition to the amount spent on special diet. Manoj Kumar also stated that in the treatment a sum of Rs. 15 to 20,000/- was spent. Manoj Kumar had stated that X-ray was taken 5 or 6 times and the leg was plastered thrice and it took five months for the appellant to become all right. The Tribunal found that bills were not submitted by the claimant in support of the claim about medical expenses but considering that amount must have been spent on treatment and on special diet, it awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal found that bills were not submitted by the claimant in support of the claim about medical expenses but considering that amount must have been spent on treatment and on special diet, it awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. However, it cannot be overlooked that the treatment continued for a period of about six months and during this period amount must have also been spent on special diet. Therefore, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on medical expenses and for special diet. It has come in evidence that there was shortening of leg as a result of the fracture. The appel1 ant has, thus, received permanent disablement and although there was no evidence about the percentage of disability yet there was ample evidence to show that he limps while walking. This has affected his prospect in life; be it in service, marriage, sports, etc., The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- which does not appear to be just and adequate. The appellant deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. We therefore, award a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the claimant on this count. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- for physical pain and mental agony. We find that this amount is inadequate. The appellant had claimed Rs. 30,000/- on the ground that the faracture had occasioned great mental agony and physical discomfort. The appellant deserves a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the same. Thus, we find that the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 55,000/-. This appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. It is directed that the respondent No.2 shall pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 55,000/- with 6% interest from the date of the application till the date of award and 12% interest from the date of the award till the date of payment. The amount already paid by the respondents shal1 be adjusted. There shall be no order as to costs of this appeal.