Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 438 (MP)

VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA v. E. G. KHOSALE

2003-03-25

BHAWANI SINGH, S.S.KEMKAR

body2003
BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahdol in Claim. Case No. 37 of 1991 dated 1. 3. 1997. ( 2 ) ACCIDENT took place on 4. 3. 1991 when B. G. Khosale driving jeep No. CPZ 4928 rashly and negligently hit the scooter of which claimant was pillion rider. As a result of this accident, claimant suffered crush injury in the right leg with compound fracture. He undertook treatment for one and half years with the doctors at shahdol, Bilaspur and Jabalpur. Claimant was running a restaurant at Shahdol and earning Rs. 100 per day. Compensation of rs. 14,50,000 is claimed. The respondents b. G. Khosale and one Kunwar Bahadur singh have been proceeded ex pane while state of Madhya Pradesh states that the jeep was being driven by Kunwar Bahadur singh carefully. On account of the negligence of claimant the scooter entangled with the left bumper and tyres of the jeep, being driven rashly and negligently. The jeep was stopped immediately and claimant shifted to the hospital. After treatment there is no permanent disability in the right leg and claimant is running the restaurant properly. At the time of accident, claimant was being taught scooter driving by his brother, therefore, the accident took place. Jeep blew horn and was being driven at a slow speed. Claim is exaggerated, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ( 3 ) ON the pleadings of parties Claims tribunal framed 7 issues in the case, took evidence, heard parties and awarded compensation of Rs. 73,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum holding that the accident took place as alleged. The scooter was not being driven rashly and negligently nor did it hit this jeep. Claimant is not responsible for the accident in which he suffered serious injuries resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 10 per cent. Against annual loss of Rs. 36,000 it is held that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,000 for 15 months (Rs. 1,000 per month ). The claimant is not satisfied with this award, therefore, it has been challenged through this appeal. ( 4 ) HEARD Mrs. Amrit Ruprah, Advocate for claimant and Mr. P. D. Gupta, Deputy advocate General for respondents. From perusal of evidence there is no doubt about taking place of accident on 4. 3. 1,000 per month ). The claimant is not satisfied with this award, therefore, it has been challenged through this appeal. ( 4 ) HEARD Mrs. Amrit Ruprah, Advocate for claimant and Mr. P. D. Gupta, Deputy advocate General for respondents. From perusal of evidence there is no doubt about taking place of accident on 4. 3. 1991 due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No. CPZ 4928 hitting the scooter with claimant as pillion rider and there being no negligence on the part of the scooter driver. Consequently, finding of Claims Tribunal on this question is sustainable, therefore, confirmed. ( 5 ) NEXT question for consideration is whether claimant has been awarded just compensation in this case. It is well settled that compensation for personal injury is higher as compared to fatal cases since in former cases compensation is utilised by the victims of accident on themselves and they continue to suffer disability in the rest of the life while in latter cases the amount is available to the dependants. Claimant is running a restaurant at Shahdol. He states that he is earning Rs. 100 per day, therefore, Rs. 36,000 per annum. He suffered crush injury in the right leg with compound fracture. He was operated upon and a rod was inserted. He took treatment at Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh), Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)and Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) and was attended by a number of doctors. He must have undergone a great pain and suffering after the accident and during treatment. He must have spent sufficient amount on treatment for one and half years, on travelling, on special diet, attendant and transport. He must also have suffered a loss of income from the restaurant for some period. With this background, it seems that award of compensation of Rs. 73,000 by the Claims tribunal is not just compensation, therefore, requires enhancement under the following heads: ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed, award is modified. The compensation of rs. 1,85,000 is awarded to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till decision on enhanced compensation, payment within two months. Costs on parties. Appeal allowed. .