Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1240 (MP)

PRABHU v. JASWANT SINGH RATHOR

2010-12-15

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2010
JUDGMENT : Prakash Shrivastava, J. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 24.4.2009, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 157 of 2008. The appellant had suffered injury in the road accident, which had taken place on 28.2.2008. Accordingly, he had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the appellant had suffered permanent disability in the accident and, therefore, awarded Rs. 9,500 towards loss of income during treatment period, Rs. 5,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 3,500 for special diet and transportation charges and Rs. 55,000 for permanent disability. Thus, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 under all the heads along with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of application till realization. 2. 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 the 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. 3. 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 appellant sustained permanent disablement. He could not perform any work during the treatment period and suffered loss of income. Learned counsel further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and award has been passed without properly appreciating the injuries sustained, the permanent disablement, hospitalisation, medical bills and the loss of earnings. In view of the said submissions the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been assailed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company has supported the findings of the Claims Tribunal and argued that compensation as awarded by the impugned award is just and proper, which does not warrant any interference by this court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Dr. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company has supported the findings of the Claims Tribunal and argued that compensation as awarded by the impugned award is just and proper, which does not warrant any interference by this court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Dr. Abhay Jain had stated before the Tribunal that on account of the injuries received in the accident, the appellant had lost his mental balance and he had suffered disability to the extent of 75 per cent. The appellant had appeared before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had assessed the mental condition of the appellant and found that his mental condition was not proper on account of the injuries received in the accident. The Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings with regard to the mental condition of the appellant and the evidence of the doctor in support of the 75 per cent permanent disability has not been disbelieved by the Tribunal. But, learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding amount of Rs. 1,00,000, without considering the fact that the appellant, at the time of accident, was an able-bodied person, aged about 30 years, therefore, keeping in view the notional income of the appellant of Rs. 3,000 per month, applying the multiplier of 17, 75 per cent loss of income due to permanent disability, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,59,000 and whereas the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 55,000 under this head. Thus, amount awarded under this head deserves to be enhanced by a sum of Rs. 4,04,000. The Tribunal has not awarded adequate amount under other heads, such as pain and suffering, transportation charges, attendant charges, special diet, etc. The appellant is entitled to further sum of Rs. 21,000 under other heads. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 4,25,000 (rupees four lakh twenty-five thousand), which will bear interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of application till realization. The appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Appeal partly allowed.