Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1111 (MP)

Jumma Khan v. Najar Mohd.

2010-11-09

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2010
ORDER 1. The appeal is filed by the appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 26.3.2004 passed by learned MACT Kukshi, District Dhar in claim case No. 137/2004. . 2. The appellant has suffered injury in the road motor accident which had taken place on 15.5.2002. Accordingly, he had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the evidence to the effect that the appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 18% in the right hand. The Tribunal also found that the age of the appellant at the time of accident was 52 years but the Tribunal awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs. 30,000/- under all the heads. The Tribunal has further granted interest @ 9% from the date of application. 3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, negligence in driving the offending vehicle, and liability to pay compensation, etc., because the Tribunal has already recorded the findings in favour of the appellant and none of those findings have been challenged at the instance of the respondents, i.e., owner/driver/Insurance Company by filing cross appeal or cross objection. In that view of the matter it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on those issues. 4. Shri V.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injuries sustained by the appellant were grievous in nature. It is also submitted that on account of grievous injuries the injured sustained permanent disablement. He could not have performed any work during the treatment, and earn any means. Counsel further submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate, without looking to the permanent disablement or the injuries sustained, hospitalization medical bills and the loss of earning. In view of the said submissions the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been assailed, because it is meager and deserves enhancement. 5. On the other hand Shri S.V. Dandavate learned counsel appearing for the respondent /Insurance Company has contended in support of the findings of the claims Tribunal and argued that the compensation as awarded by the impugned award is just and proper, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 7. Dr. 6. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 7. Dr. B.L. Khangar (AW 2) has stated that the appellant has suffered the fracture of wrist in the right hand and the fracture was not fully cured and movement of the right wrist was restricted on account of the injuries received in the accident. The Doctor opined that there was two centimeter wasting in the forearm of the right hand and there was weakening of muscles and reduction in the movement of the wrist to the extent of6% and 13.1 %, therefore, the Doctor opined that the appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 18% in the right hand. Considering the nature of work of the appellant and the opinion of Doctor, it is safe to conclude that the appellant had suffered 10% permanent disability in reference to the whole body. 8. So far as the income of the appellant is concerned, the appellant has slated before the Tribunal that he was working as Hammaal at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 100/- per day. He has also stated that he is not in a position to do his work after the accident. Considering the year of the accident and the nature of work of the appellant, it is safe to assess the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000/- which comes to Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The evidence indicates that at the time of accident, the appellant was aged between 50-55 years, therefore, the applicable multiplier would be 11. Thus, the loss of earning due to the permanent disability comes to Rs. 36,000 x 10% x 11 = 39,600/-. In addition to this, the appellant is also entitled to some reasonable amount under the head of actual medical expenses. He is also entitled to the adequate compensation for the physical and mental pain and suffering, transportation charges, special diet etc. Under these heads, it will be adequate to award a lump-sum of Rs. 15,400/-. Thus, the appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 55,000/- (Rs. 39600 + Rs. 15400). As against this, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Enhanced amount will bear interest @ 9% from the date of application till realization. 9. 15,400/-. Thus, the appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 55,000/- (Rs. 39600 + Rs. 15400). As against this, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Enhanced amount will bear interest @ 9% from the date of application till realization. 9. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.