Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 662 (MP)

Ibrahim @ Kalu v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

2005-06-28

S.K.GANGELE

body2005
JUDGMENT Appellant has filed this appeal against the award dated 20.4.2001 passed by the Additional M.A.C.T. Kukshi, District Dhar, in Claim Case No. 6/1999. It is stated that the appellant was going from Village Amlal to Kukshi on his bicycle on 21.10.1999 when he was dashed by Tractor No. F.Y.A.O 4713 in the noon. He suffered serious injuries in the accident and was admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, he filed the claim application before the Tribunal. The learned claims Tribunal has held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and owner, driver and the Insurance Company are liable for payment of compensation. The claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 58,500/-. Rs. 24,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 25,000/ towards pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 4,500/- for future loss of earning. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation on lower side. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 has submitted that the award of the Tribunal is just and proper. It is clear from the medical evidence that the appellant suffered serious fracture injury in his left leg and his left leg was virtually broken. He was admitted in Government Hospital Barwani and thereafter he was further admitted in the hospital at Badora for near about two months and 10 days. He was operated two times. As per the evidence of Dr. K.C. Gupta, who was working as Medical Officer, in Civil Hospital Alirajpur, there was a compound fracture of femur bone of the left leg of the appellant. He further deposed that the movement in the leg was near about O, he could not walk without any support and there was limping in his movement. On the basis of above evidence, he certified that were 71 % permanent disability to the appellant. As per the evidence, the appellant was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident and he was doing the job of cycle repairing. His income from the above job can be assessed at Rs. 1,500/- per month, hence yearly income comes to Rs. 18,000/- and looking to the age of the appellant multiplier of 18 would be applicable, then the totallos5 of income to the appellant comes to Rs. His income from the above job can be assessed at Rs. 1,500/- per month, hence yearly income comes to Rs. 18,000/- and looking to the age of the appellant multiplier of 18 would be applicable, then the totallos5 of income to the appellant comes to Rs. 3,24,000/- and if the total permanent disability is said to be 30% then the loss of future income due to permanent disability to the appellant comes to Rs. 1,08,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant as loss of future income without recording any reasons, which appears to be grossly inadequate and contrary to law. On the basis of above analysis, facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, medical and documentary evidence on record according to my opinion, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,03,000/-. Consequently, appeal of the appellant is allowed to the extent that the appellant will get an enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,03,000/- from the respondents which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application of the appellant before the Tribunal. Liability with regard to payment of compensation would be same as fixed by the Claims Tribunal. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.