Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1033 (MP)

Pramod Sharma v. Sandeep Kumar Rawat

2006-08-30

A.K.GOHIL, P.K.JAISWAL

body2006
JUDGMENT Jaiswal, J. -- 1. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded vide award dated 29.3.2003 passed by the IVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vidisha, in Claim Case No. 4/2004, whereby a sum of Rs. 42,000/- has been awarded along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum the present appeal has been filed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.5.2003 the appellant along with Kailash Rathore. Haridas alias Raju Panthi had gone to Bhopal on the Yamaha Motorcycle. The Motorcycle was driven by Kailash Rathore and he was pillion rider in the said motorcycle. At about 12:00 p.m. in the midnight they were returning from Bhopal, near village Kulhadiya one Jeep was coming from the opposite direction. The jeep was driven by respondent No.2 very rashly and negligently. He dashed the stationary motorcycle. The appellant received severe injuries. The matter was reported to the Salamat Pur Police Station vide Crime No. 73/2003 on 19.5.2003 and the criminal case was registered against the respondent No.2. 3. The appellant had filed an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") alleging that due to the said accident he had multiple fracture at right forearm and his knee was also fractured. He was admitted at District Hospital, Vidisha. He was also treated at Memorial Hospital at Vidisha by Dr. Chaurashia. It is also averred that due to the said injuries he received permanent disability and claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 16,20,000/-. 4. The respondents denied the allegations made in the claim petition by filing their written statement and averred that injuries received by the appellant is simple in nature. The Claims Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record held that due to injuries the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 18%. The Claims Tribunal also held that accident was taken place because of rash and negligent driving of jeep by the respondent No.2. The bill of medical expenses for Rs. 3,650/- is admitted by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal further held that appellant spent amount in his treatment, special diet and in total awarded Rs. 12,000/- towards medical treatment. In respect of permanent disability the trial Court awarded Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of income. Thus in total Rs. The bill of medical expenses for Rs. 3,650/- is admitted by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal further held that appellant spent amount in his treatment, special diet and in total awarded Rs. 12,000/- towards medical treatment. In respect of permanent disability the trial Court awarded Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of income. Thus in total Rs. 42,000/- were awarded with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application. 5. No cross-objection is filed to challenge the finding about rash and negligent driving. Other findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal is not under challenge. 6. Now, the question relates to quantum of compensation. The appellant-Pramod Sharma (AW 1) and Dr. R.K. Masta (AW 2) Medical Officer District Hospital, Vidisha was examined before the Claims Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a grain merchant and is running grain merchant shop at Vidisha, his income was Rs. 2 lacs per annum. No document to support the said income was filed by the appellant nor he filed any income tax return to prove that at the time of accident his income was Rs. 2 lacs per annum. It is also submitted by the learned counsel, the appellant spent Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- on his treatment and trial Court wrongly awarded Rs. 12,000/only towards medical treatment special diet etc. etc. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the appellant failed to prove that his income was Rs. 2 lac per annum and in support of the same no document was filed nor he filed copy of the registration of shop under the Shop and Establishment Act, to prove that at the time of accident he was running grain merchant shop nor he filed any other document to prove his estimated income and the amounts awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. With the above objection, learned counsel for respondent No.3 prays for dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. It is not in dispute that due to the accident, the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 18%. This, finding was given by the trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. It is not in dispute that due to the accident, the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 18%. This, finding was given by the trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record. As stated above, no cross-objection or appeal was filed by the respondent No.3 to challenge the said finding and, therefore, it is not in dispute that due to accident the appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 18%. 10. Before the accident the appellant was a grain merchant shop keeper and having his shop at Vidisha and, therefore, he is not a non-earning person and he must be earning around Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 2,500/per month from the said shop and it can be safely held that his income was around Rs. 2,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 24,000/- per annum. Claimant is said to be 25 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, multiplier of 17 will be applicable. As regards loss of earning is concerned, due to the accident the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 18% and, therefore, loss of earning will be 18% i.e. Rs. 2,880/- per annum (24000/18=2880). On applying the multiplying of 17, compensation is determined to Rs. 48960/-(2880x17=48960). Claimant will be entitled for a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 12,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards of loss of income. Since there is no challenge to that part of the award, claimant will be entitled to Rs. 12,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards of loss of income. Thus, the total compensation is determined to Rs. 75,960/-. Award is modified and enhanced to Rs. 75,960/-. The enhanced amount will be carrying interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the award. 11. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.