Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 64 (MP)

Hare Singh Solanki v. Ramaji

2006-01-09

DIPAK MISRA

body2006
JUDGMENT The appellant has called in question the sustainability of the award passed by the First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khandwa (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 99/97 whereby the Tribunal has only awarded a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- in his favour whereas he had prayed for a sum of Rs. 9,25,000/- as regards the nature of accident occurred and the disability suffered by him. The facts which are necessary to be stated are that the claimant/appellant instituted a proceeding under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') on the ground that he was posted as a Senior Surveyor in the Department of Town Planning, Khandwa. On 1.5.1997 when he was travelling on his Rajdoot motorcycle the offending tempo-trax bearing registration No. MP-19/0573 coming from the opposite side dashed against him being rashly and negligently driven by the respondent No. 1, as a result of which the appellant suffered grievous injuries on his legs and waist causing fracture on his tibia fibula and femur bones of the right leg. It was set forth before the Tribunal that the appellant took treatment at various hospitals and remained under treatment at Indore and Jalgaon upto 2.9.1998. It was further put forth that the appel1ant can hardly walk without crutches and he has become permanently disabled in moving his right leg. It was set forth in the claim petition that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 5,000/- from the Town Planning Department and he used to earn Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum from his agricultural land and hence, he was entitled to a sum Rs. 9,25,000/- as compensation. The owner and driver of the tempo trax, respondents No. 1 and 2 herein, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The insurer admitted that the vehicle was insured with it but refuted the claim on the asseveration that the driver of the truck did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident, which did tantamount to breach of the policy condition and hence, it deserved exoneration. The Tribunal framed as many as seven issues. It determined the quantum by holding that the claimant-appellant spent a sum of Rs. 1,01,000/- towards his treatment and other ancillary expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards physical and mental suffering. Thus, in toto. a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant/appellant. The Tribunal framed as many as seven issues. It determined the quantum by holding that the claimant-appellant spent a sum of Rs. 1,01,000/- towards his treatment and other ancillary expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards physical and mental suffering. Thus, in toto. a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant/appellant. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that nothing has been brought on record to establish that the driver did not have a valid licence and thereby there had been breach of condition of policy. The claimant/appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the awarded sum on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly determined the compensation and has not taken into consideration the permanent disability caused to him owing to the accident. Mr. Sunil Jain, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company combatted the aforesaid submission and supported the award passed by the Tribunal. I have heard Mr. Anil Lala, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. The thrust of the matter is whether the Tribunal has awarded just compensation in favour of the claimant or the amount awarded deserves to be enhanced. On a scrutiny of the material brought on record it is evincible that the injured-claimant had sustained injuries as have been indicated hereinabove. The Tribunal has taken note of certain receipts and has computed expenses which pertained to purchase of medicines, expenses on diet and transportation and on that score has fixed the amount at Rs. 1,0 1,000/as far as pern1anent disability is concerned. Though disability certificates Exhibits-A/56 and A/209 had been brought on record indicating 30% permanent disability but the Tribunal has not accepted the same on the ground that his income had not been affected. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 10.000/- towards mental suffering. On a perusal of the evidence it is demonstrable that the claimant had suffered the disability. What has weighed in the mind of the Tribunal that there was no loss of income. Apart from the same the Tribunal has not taken other handicaps sustained by the claimant. It has come in the evidence that he has to use crutches. It is also brought out in evidence that he is not in a position to lead his normal life. Apart from the same the Tribunal has not taken other handicaps sustained by the claimant. It has come in the evidence that he has to use crutches. It is also brought out in evidence that he is not in a position to lead his normal life. The injuries have caused a permanent disability, as a consequence of which his normal living is affected. In my considered opinion, the said fact cannot be totally ignored. The Tribunal has grossly erred by excluding the said aspects from consideration while granting compensation. I am disposed to think that on this ground the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. As far as mental suffering is concerned, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 10.000/- which is quite low inasmuch as the claimant had undergone treatment at many a level and suffered mental agony and anguish. He has remained in the hospital for considerable period of time. Considering the totality of circumstances, I think it appropriate to enhance amount of compensation in this score at Rs.20.000/-. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 1.71.000/- (Rupees one lakh seventy one thousand) only. The balance amount should be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of three months from today. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the application till the date of deposition before the Tribunal. The miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.