Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 911 (MP)

Habib v. Mangilal

2005-08-24

A.K.TIWARI, A.M.SAPRE

body2005
JUDGMENT The appeal is directed against the award dated 9.8.2001, passed by the 4th Member. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 114/2000. The appellant met with a motor road accident and sustained injuries; thereby he tiled a claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation for the loss caused to him due to the accident. The gist of the case of the claimant/appellant's case is that on 20.10.2000, he was going on a bicycle from his house towards Mandsaur for attending his work as he was a labour and was working as Hanumal. Near the bridge over Shivna River a bus bearing registration No. MKU-77 18. driveh rashly and negligently by respondent No. J. owned by respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent No.3 dashed against him. Due to the impact the appellant sustained injuries and fracture was caused in clavicle bone of his right hand and in scapula. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident the appellant was paralyzed and has become permanently disabled. He had spent about Rs. 1.50.000/- in his treatment and about Rs. 25,000/- in taking special diet. He had also suffered physical pain and mental agony. He was aged 25 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 4.000/p.m. by working as a labour. After the accident he has been paralyzed and become permanently disabled and he is unable to earn his livelihood. He claimed a sum of Rs. 10.89.000/- in all as compensation. The respondents opposed the claim and tiled their respective written statements. The learned Tribunal, after framing and trying the issues accepted the claim Of the appellant id part and passed an award of Rs. 1.69.000/- in favour of the appellant against the respondents. Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of the award the appellant has tiled this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to him. The learned Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. I who was driving the vehicle. Learned Tribunal has also found that the appellant sustained injuries in the accident and suffered permanent disablement due to injuries. No cross-appeal is before us. Therefore the findings of the Tribunal regarding the involvement of the vehicle in question in the accident, negligence of the respondent the fact of appellant receiving injuries, etc. have become final and binding on respondents. Learned Tribunal has also found that the appellant sustained injuries in the accident and suffered permanent disablement due to injuries. No cross-appeal is before us. Therefore the findings of the Tribunal regarding the involvement of the vehicle in question in the accident, negligence of the respondent the fact of appellant receiving injuries, etc. have become final and binding on respondents. The liability of Insurance Company has also not been questioned. Learned Claims Tribunal has held that due to the injury, the earning capacity of the appellant must have been affected to the extent of 50%. Thus according to the finding of the Tribunal itself the appellant will be able to earn only half of the amount then what he was earning prior to the accident. The learned Tribunal has computed the loss of income to be Rs. 750/- p.m. only which in our view is on some what lower side. The appellant is a Youngman and at the time at the time of the incident was aged about 25 Years and he was working as a Hammal in a Daal Mill Though there is no document no documentary evidence to decide the exact earning of the appellant. but in the facts and circumstances of the case it can be assumed that the appellant might have been earning Rs. 2.000/- p.m. and his earning capacity, due to the accident, has been decreed by 50%. Therefore, the loss of earning can be computed at Rs. 1,000/- p.m. The appellant was between the age group of 25 to 30 years, therefore, for computing the loss a proper multiplier would be 18 while the Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 16. Thus, the multiplier selected by the learned Tribunal is also on lower side. The proper multiplier shall be 18. Thus. the loss of income caused to the appellant comes to Rs. 12.000/- x 18 = Rs. 2,16,000/-. The learned Tribunal has allowed Rs. 10,000/- towards the expenses incurred on treatment and special diet, etc. and Rs. 15.000/- towards pain and sufferings. These amounts also deserve to be enhanced a bit looking to the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant. We raise these amounts so as to make the total amount of compensation payable to the appellant at Rs. 2,50,000/-. Thus, according to us the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 2.50,000/- as compensation from the respondents jointly and severally. These amounts also deserve to be enhanced a bit looking to the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant. We raise these amounts so as to make the total amount of compensation payable to the appellant at Rs. 2,50,000/-. Thus, according to us the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 2.50,000/- as compensation from the respondents jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall bear interest @ 6% per annum. Consequently this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondents to bear cost of the appellant throughout. Counsel fee Rs. 1.000/-. if certified.