Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 497 (MP)

Ramakant Singh v. Amba Ram

2005-04-07

S.K.GANGELE

body2005
JUDGMENT This is claimant appeal for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 22.11.2001 passed by the 11th M.A.C.T. Indore, in Claim. Case No. 115/01. The appellant is aged 35 years. On 19.5.1998 at 3:15 in the afternoon he was going on his scooter bearing No. J.B. 3317 to Jawhar Tekri. He was dashed by a Tractor bearing No. MP09-0165 driven negligently and rashly by the driver. He received serious injuries and admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, he filed the claim application claiming compensation of Rs. 2,11,000/-. The learned claims tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver and caused serious injuries to the claimant. The tractor was insured with the respondent No.3. Hence owner, driver and Insurance Company of the tractor are liable to pay compensation to the appellant and awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded to the appellant was on lower side. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 contended that the offending vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company hence it is not liable to pay compensation and the finding of the claims tribunal in this respect is not as per law. It is clear from the evidence of Dr. Deepak Kulkarni, who is a specialist in neuro surgery, that the appellant received injuries on his head. There was also injury on his hand. At the time of accident he became unconscious. He submitted that there was a fracture on the head of the appellant and he treated the appellant for the same injury for near about six months. Dr. G.L. Jakhetiya (AW 4) has deposed that he had done skin grafting on the right hand of the appellant. Another doctor Sapan Banerji has issued the disability certificate, also deposed that there was total 20% disability to the appellant because he received fracture of zygomatic bone of head and there was a fracture in the left hand of the appellant on the basis of the above injuries he issued the certificate. The tribunal also held that there was 20% permanent disability to the appellant and awarded total compensation of Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- for medical expenses and Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering. It is clear from the evidence of Dr. Deepak Kulkarni, who is a specialist in neuro surgery, that the appellant received injuries on his head. The tribunal also held that there was 20% permanent disability to the appellant and awarded total compensation of Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- for medical expenses and Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering. It is clear from the evidence of Dr. Deepak Kulkarni, who is a specialist in neuro surgery, that the appellant received injuries on his head. There was also injury on his right hand and at the time of the accident he became unconscious. He further deposed that there was a brain injury to the appellant and he treated him for near about six months. Next witness Dr. G.L. Jakhetiya (A W 4) deposed that he had done skin grafting on the right hand of the appellant. Another doctor S.K. Banerji, who has issued disablement certificate, deposed that there was total 20% disability to the appellant, there was because fracture of zymotic bone of the head, a fracture of left hand on the appellant and on the basis of above injuries he issued the certificate. It is clear from the award of the claims tribunal that it has not calculated future loss of earning of appellant nor the loss of the earning when he was under treatment. It is an admitted position that the appellant was aged 35 years, hence multiplier of 17 would be applicable as per second schedule of the M.V. Act and as per the evidence he was working at Sardar Automobile Service and getting salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month, on the basis of above evidence it can safely be said that the appellant was getting Rs. 2,500/- per month hence his annual income comes to Rs. 30,000/- and after applying the multiplier of 17 total loss comes to Rs. 5,10,000/- and 20% of the above comes to Rs. 1,02,000/-. On the basis of above calculation, 'in my' opinion, the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/compensation for loss of future earning. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. It is directed that the appellant will get enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the tribunal till realization. The impugned award is modified to the extent stated above. It is further made clear that only the owner and the driver will be liable to pay enhanced compensation because the vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company.