Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 332 (MP)

Swadesh Kumar Jain v. Jayanti

2007-03-21

S.SAMVATSAR, SANJAY YADAV

body2007
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is filed by the claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act being aggrieved by the award dated 13. 5. 2002 passed by Fifth Additional Member Judge, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 30 of 1999 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 85,000 towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident. ( 2. ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the claimant was driving a motor cycle and was going from Anaj Mandi to Bharat Traders, Dabra. When he reached at the gate of Anaj Mandi, tractor No. MP 07-H 5183 which was driven by Jayanti, respondent No. 1 and was owned by Dakua Ram, respondent No. 2 dashed against the said motor cycle which has resulted into fracture of tibia and fibula bones of the right leg of the claimant. The tractor was insured with insurance company, respondent No. 3. Due to the said injuries, the appellant-claimant was treated at Gwalior and then at A. I. I. M. S. , New Delhi. He had undergone more than two operations and there was a shortening of six centimetres of his right leg. ( 3. ) THE claimant filed an application claiming compensation before the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal found that the claimant was 25 years of age at the time of the accident. He was working in a grocery shop. According to the claimant he was earning Rs. 3,000 per month from the said grocery shop. ( 4. ) CLAIMS Tribunal while assessing the income of the claimant has relied on the statement of the claimant. In his crossexamination he has stated that the other employees in the grocery shop are earning Rs. 500-Rs. 700 per month. Considering this fact, the Tribunal assessed his income on notional basis, i. e. , at Rs. 15,000 per annum. ( 5. ) CLAIMANT was working as a munim in a grocery shop. There is a shortening of six centimetres in his leg. So far as question of loss of earning capacity is concerned, considering the fact that there is a shortening of six centimetres in his right leg, we assess loss of earning capacity to the extent of 25 per cent. Thus, the yearly loss of earning capacity comes to Rs. 3,700. There is a shortening of six centimetres in his leg. So far as question of loss of earning capacity is concerned, considering the fact that there is a shortening of six centimetres in his right leg, we assess loss of earning capacity to the extent of 25 per cent. Thus, the yearly loss of earning capacity comes to Rs. 3,700. The claimant was 25 years of age hence, multiplier of 18 will be applicable and on applying the multiplier of 18, we assess total loss of earning capacity to Rs. 66,600. ( 6. ) THE claimant has filed large number of bills towards medical expenses which are Exhs. P51 to P61, P84 to P129 and P178 to P193. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000 for medical expenses. After perusing the bills we find that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards medical expenses is on the lower side. Approximately the total of these bills will come to Rs. 2,00,000 and we hold that the claimant will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 towards medical expenses. ( 7. ) APART from this, the claimant will also be entitled to compensation towards pain and suffering. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards the said head which we maintain. ( 8. ) CLAIMANT will also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,400 towards special diet. ( 9. ) THUS, the total compensation comes to Rs. 3,00,000 (rupees three lakh) and we hold that amount of Rs. 3,00,000 (rupees three lakh) is just and proper compensation in this case. Thus, we enhance the amount of compensation from Rs. 85,000 (rupees eighty-five thousand) to Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lakh ). Claimant will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal till realisation. ( 10. ) THE appeal succeeds in part and is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Appeal partly allowed.