Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 915 (MP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajesh

2007-08-21

S.A.NAQVI, S.SAMVATSAR

body2007
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 23/2003 and Misc. Appeal No. 301/2003 filed by the Insurance company and the claimant respectively challenging the award dated 30th November, 2002 passed by 12th Additional Member Judge, motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track), gwalior in Claim Case No. 41/2002 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of rs. 3,25,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant dipendra Singh Harsana. ( 2. ) FACTS of the case in brief are that on 24th december, 1999 at about 12. 30 in the noon claimant was going on his motorcycle towards his village Rasu. When he reached near Rairu farm, truck bearing registration No. DIG 7373 which was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 Ramchandra Singh dashed against him which resulted into grievous injuries to him. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition claiming compensation. ( 3. ) THE Claims Tribunal assessed that the claimant has suffered seventy per cent permanent disablement and awarded a sum of rs. 3,25,000/- towards compensation. This award is under challenge in these appeals filed by the Insurance Company and the claimant on the question of quantum. ( 4. ) ISSUE about the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the truck is not under challenge in both these appeals. ( 5. ) FROM the findings of the Claims Tribunal it appears that the claimant was 28 years of age at the time of accident and he was working as a teacher in a school. Claims Tribunal assessed his incomet Rs. 18,000/- perannum and assessed his permanent disability at seventy per cent. ( 6. ) CONTENTION of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company is that finding about permanent disability is erroneous and cannot be sustained. He submitted that no scientific tests were conducted to assess the permanent disability and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the claimant has suffered seventy per cent permanent disablement. Hence, according to the Counsel for the Insurance Company the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side. ( 7. ) SHRI B. D. Verma, learned Counsel for ihe claimant submitted that the claimant has become permanent disabled. He was working as a teacher in an aided institution run by the society. Certificates Exts. Hence, according to the Counsel for the Insurance Company the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side. ( 7. ) SHRI B. D. Verma, learned Counsel for ihe claimant submitted that the claimant has become permanent disabled. He was working as a teacher in an aided institution run by the society. Certificates Exts. P-32 to P-35 show that the claimant was employed in a society running an aided school, and his salary was rs. 3,200/- per month. Hence, according to the Counsel for the claimant, the Claims tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 1,500/ -. He also contended that the Claims Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 16 when the claimant was 28 years of age at the time of the accident. Hence, according to him, multiplier of 18 should have been applied as per the table framed under the schedule under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ( 8. ) SO far as the question of income is concerned, Counsel for the Insurance company has relied on a judgment of the apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and others, 2007 (1)An. W. R. 545 (SC) = 2007 (5) ALT 25. 3 (DN SC) = 2007 (3) SCJ 498 = (2007) 5 SCC 428 = 2007 (2) TAC 417. He invited attention to para 11 of the judgment in which the Apex Court has held that mere oral evidence of the widow of the deceased is not sufficient to prove the income and it was necessary for the claimant to examine the employer. ( 9. ) IN the present case, the case does not hinges merely on oral evidence of the claimant, but there are documents Exts. P-32 to P-35 in support of the contention made by the claimant. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the Insurance Company is quite distinguishable. ( 10. ) AFTER perusing the documents Exts. P-32 to P-35 it is clear that the claimant was working as a teacher in a Government aided school and he was maintaining the mother at the time of the accident. Considering these facts, even in the absence of specific evidence, we can hold his monthly income at Rs. 3,000/ -. Therefore, we assess his monthly income at rs. 3. 000/- i. e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Considering these facts, even in the absence of specific evidence, we can hold his monthly income at Rs. 3,000/ -. Therefore, we assess his monthly income at rs. 3. 000/- i. e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After applying the multiplier of 18, the compensation will come to Rs. 6,48,000/ -. As the claimant has permanently lost his services and he has become paralytic, this amount appears to be reasonable. ( 11. ) SO far as the question, of, permanent disability is concerned, Dr. A. K. Dubey (A. W. 2)has stated that he was examined the claimant and he found that he has become permanent paralytic. The claimant is not in a position to stand. Statement of the claimant was recorded on commission in lying position as the commission has noted that he was not in a position to sit. This shows that the claimant has suffered permanent disablement to the tune of hundred per cent. A person who is not in a position to stand or even sit is not fit to continue the job as a teacher. In such circumstances, award of Rs. 6,48,000/-towards loss of income appears to be just and reasonable. ( 12. ) APART from this amount, the Claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 27,000/-towards medical expenses. This amount is supported by bills and vouchers, hence, no interference in the said amount is called for and the claimant is entitled to the said amount. After adding this amount, the compensation will come to Rs. 6,75,000/ -. Apart from this, the claimant is also entitled for compensation underother heads such as pain and suffering, special diet, attendance charges, transportation etc. Under these heads, we award a sum of Rs. 25,000/ -. Hence, the total compensation is enhanced from Rs. 3,25,000/- (Rs. three lacs twenty five thousand) to rs. 7,00,000/-(Rs. seven lacs ). The claimant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the appeal till realisation. ( 13. ) IN the result, Misc. Appeal No. 233/ 2003 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and Misc. Appeal No. 301/2003 filed by the claimant is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.