Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 158 (MP)

Sanjay Batham v. Munnalal Parihar

2009-02-02

S.K.GANGELE

body2009
Judgment S.K. Gangele, J. ( 1. ) This appeal has been filed by appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against an award dated 4.7.2008 passed by learned Eighth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwa- lior in Claim Case No. 139 of 1996 for enhancement of award. ( 2. ) On 9.5.1996 appellant along with his friend was going on a scooter from Gola Phadiya, Gwalior to Nehru Petrol Pump. Near A.B. Road a truck bearing registration No. MKH 7787 dashed appellant. In the aforesaid accident appellant received serious injuries on his right shoulder and head. Report of the accident was lodged at Police Station, Gola Phadiya and subsequently at Police Station, Janakgaj vide Crime No. 292 of 1996. After investigation police registered case under sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the vehicle and charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court. Appellant was admitted at Madhav Dispensary, he was referred to J.A.H. Hospital for neurosurgery because there was fracture in the head of the appellant. Hence the operation was performed. As per appellant due to the aforesaid accident his half body has been paralysed. The appellant filed claim application claiming a total compensation of Rs. 4,20,000. Claims Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. Truck was insured by respondent No. 3 insurance company, hence driver, owner and insurance company are liable for payment of compensation and awarded total compensation of Rs. 25,000. ( 3. ) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the medical report and other aspects of the case and awarded less compensation. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this court reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mani Ram, 2003 ACJ 1181 (MP). ( 4. ) Learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that the proper compensation has been awarded to the appellant looking to the nature of injuries suffered. ( 5. ) In support of the case, appellant- claimant examined himself. He stated that on 9.5.1996 he was dashed by the truck bearing registration No. MKH 7787 near Nehru Petrol Pump. He received serious injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Report of the accident was lodged at the police station. ( 5. ) In support of the case, appellant- claimant examined himself. He stated that on 9.5.1996 he was dashed by the truck bearing registration No. MKH 7787 near Nehru Petrol Pump. He received serious injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Report of the accident was lodged at the police station. He was admitted at Madhav Dispensary and thereafter he was referred to Gwalior Medical College where he was hospitalised for 14 days. Due to head injury an operation was also performed at Medical College. After the operation there is paralysis of left hand of the body. He could not work with the aforesaid hand. He further stated that he has been continuously taking medicine. At the time of accident he was earning Rs. 50 per day and he was working at Raj Gas Agency. Mother of the appellant Muni Devi stated the same fact in her evidence. ( 6. ) Dr. N.D. Vayas, who was working at relevant time as Head of the Neurosurgery Department at J.A.H. Hospital has been examined as witness No. 5. He in his evidence stated that the claimant was admitted in Neurosurgery Department on 9.5.1996 and he was discharged on 18.5.1996. As per CT scan he had injury on the right part of the head. Claimant was treated by Dr. S.N. Iyengar and operation was also performed on his head. As per the prescription there was paralysis to the claimant of left hand and left leg. He had been getting fits after accident. I found weakness of left heomeparalysis and fracture in left hand. He further stated that after discharge also he has treated claimant. After the accident also the claimant was under continuous treatment. As per the papers shown by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments, the appellant is also getting treatment at present. Appellant is also present in person before the court. From the appearance of the appellant, it is clear that there is partial paralysis of left hand and left leg of the appellant. Appellant has also filed disability certificate, Exh. P20 issued by Dr. Prabhat Kaushal. As per the aforesaid certificate there is 45 per cent disability to the appellant. ( 7. From the appearance of the appellant, it is clear that there is partial paralysis of left hand and left leg of the appellant. Appellant has also filed disability certificate, Exh. P20 issued by Dr. Prabhat Kaushal. As per the aforesaid certificate there is 45 per cent disability to the appellant. ( 7. ) Looking to the aforesaid evidence of the case and the nature of the injuries suffered by the appellant and the condition of the appellant, in my opinion, there is near about 50 per cent disability to the appellant because he had been doing labour at the relevant time and certainly due to accident he could not work. Appellant himself stated he was getting Rs. 50 per day, hence his monthly income could be fixed at Rs. 1,500. Appellant was aged about 20 years at the time of accident. Hence, as per Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the multiplier of 16 is applicable. Consequently total loss to the appellant on account of injury comes to Rs. 1.44,000 because appellant has been getting treatment since long period and he is also under treatment at present. Hence it would be just and proper to award Rs. 50,000 to the appellant for treatment. Certainly there is an adverse effect on the marriage prospects of the appellant and he will suffer agony to live alone due to accident. Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case, in my opinion the appellant is entitled to get another Rs. 56,000 towards pain and suffering and loss of marriage prospects. Consequently appellant is entitled a total compensation of Rs. 2,50,000. Claims Tribunal has already granted compensation of Rs. 25,000 to the appellant, hence appellant will get enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,25,000. Looking to the facts of the case that the accident occurred in the year 1996 and since then the case is pending, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to award interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum to the appellant from the date of filing of the claim application up to its realization. Consequently, appeal of the appellant is allowed to the extent that appellant will get enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,25,000, it shall carry interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the filing of the claim application up to execution of award. ( 8. Consequently, appeal of the appellant is allowed to the extent that appellant will get enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,25,000, it shall carry interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the filing of the claim application up to execution of award. ( 8. ) It is hereby clarified that enhanced amount shall not be more than double on account of interest. ( 9. ) 50 per cent of the amount, which the appellant will get on account of this order shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of five years. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.