Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 201 (MP)

Chagganlal v. Sunil Kumar

2010-02-17

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2010
JUDGMENT :- J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 30.9.2008, passed by learned Additional Member, M.A.C.T., Sardarpur, District Dhar in Claim Case No. 16 of 2007. By the impugned award, Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,37,817 with interest to the appellant by way of compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident occurred on 10.10.2006. 2. The appellant had preferred a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,00,000. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,37,817, out of which Rs. 51,637 for medical expenses, Rs. 85,680 for general damages including permanent disablement and future loss of earnings and Rs. 500 for pain and suffering. 3. Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of injuries. The injured has suffered a compressed fracture of L-4 vertebra backbone. He was hospitalised in Mittal Hospital, Dhar from 11.10.2006 to 12.10.2006 and, thereafter, went to Orthopaedic Hospital, Vadodara (Gujarat) for treatment and remained hospitalised there from 13.10.2006 to 5.11.2006, where his operation was performed by Dr. Kalpit Baxi, who was examined on commission. The statement of Dr. Kalpit Baxi and the certificate of permanent disablement issued by Dr. M.K. Borasi co-relate the difficulties; however, believing the certificate of permanent disablement by the Tribunal to the extent of 20 per cent, looking to the fracture of the backbone is undesirable. It is contended by him that the injured was an agricultural labourer; however, on account of fracture of backbone and in view of the statement of Dr. Kalpit Baxi he would not be in a position to perform his agricultural work in future. In such circumstances, the disablement as opined by the doctor ought to have been accepted or it may be a case of complete loss of earnings due to said disablement. In that view of the matter it is urged that computation of the compensation by the Tribunal accepting disablement to the extent of 20 per cent of the whole body is arbitrary. It is also contended by him that the Tribunal has accepted earnings of the injured at the rate of Rs. In that view of the matter it is urged that computation of the compensation by the Tribunal accepting disablement to the extent of 20 per cent of the whole body is arbitrary. It is also contended by him that the Tribunal has accepted earnings of the injured at the rate of Rs. 70 per day, though, the date of accident is in the month of October 2006; however, in those days the minimum wages was approximately Rs. 3,000 per month, therefore, the earnings of the injured ought to have been accepted at Rs. 3,000 per month and as per the percentage of disablement or accepting such disablement commensurate to total loss of earnings, the compensation could have been calculated by applying multiplier method as per Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also contended that as per the statement of doctor it is apparent that the appellant was having no control over urination and that is continuing even after the operation and in such circumstances Rs. 500 as allowed to the injured for pain and suffering is inadequate and further urged that no amount has been allowed in other heads like conveyance, attendant charges, special diet and loss of wages during treatment. 4. Mr. Manoj Soni, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company submits that the Tribunal has not committed any error in accepting the permanent disablement to the extent of 20 per cent with respect to whole body, because the said certificate of permanent disablement has been given by Dr. Borasi, who was not treating doctor. In view of the aforesaid it is urged that the compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is also contended by him that the Tribunal has not committed any error in accepting the earnings at Rs. 2,100 per month in a case of labourer, because as per the statement of the injured it has come on record that the agricultural labourers may earn Rs. 70 per day. In such circumstances amount of compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is just and proper and no enhancement may be directed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration of injuries, certificate of permanent disablement, statement of Dr. Kalpit Baxi and Dr. 70 per day. In such circumstances amount of compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is just and proper and no enhancement may be directed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration of injuries, certificate of permanent disablement, statement of Dr. Kalpit Baxi and Dr. M.K. Borasi it is abundantly clear that by- virtue of compressed fracture of L-4 vertebra both the legs were initially paralyzed and later on some movement was there. When the injured came in witness-box in court he had come with the help of lathi. In such circumstances it is apparent that the certificate to the extent of 40 per cent permanent disablement deserves to be accepted, assuming it to be disablement of the whole body. Fracture of L-4 vertebra, which is of the backbone, affects the whole body of human being. In such circumstances, the finding to accept such permanent disablement only to the extent of 20 per cent as given by the Tribunal is set aside and in the opinion of this court, the disablement must be accepted to the extent of 40 per cent. 6. Now coming to the point of earnings. It is to be seen whether the injured has accepted his earnings at Rs. 70 per day? After going through the statement of the injured it is apparent that he has answered with respect to payment of Rs. 70 per day to the agricultural labourers in general. So far as his own statement is concerned his earnings has been found to be about Rs. 5,000 but, in any case, in the opinion of this court whatever minimum wages prevalent on the date of accident is a decisive factor. If such daily wages is accepted to the extent of Rs. 2,750 per month, then it annually comes to Rs. 33,000 and if according to the certificate 40 per cent disablement for future loss of earnings is being accepted as it is, then the loss of earnings comes to Rs. 13,200 per annum and if it is multiplied as per his age by 17, then the future loss of earnings comes to the tune of Rs. 2,24,400. The Tribunal has allowed in the said head Rs. 85,680, therefore, if we deduct the said amount then enhanced amount comes in the head of future loss of earnings Rs. 1,38,720. 13,200 per annum and if it is multiplied as per his age by 17, then the future loss of earnings comes to the tune of Rs. 2,24,400. The Tribunal has allowed in the said head Rs. 85,680, therefore, if we deduct the said amount then enhanced amount comes in the head of future loss of earnings Rs. 1,38,720. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 500 for pain and suffering, though the injured is not having control even on urination; however, in such cases and in a case of fracture of vertebra in the opinion of this court Rs. 20,000 would be just and proper compensation in the head of pain and suffering. In other heads like loss of wages during treatment, conveyance, attendant charges, special diet Rs. 30,000 is further being allowed. 7. In view of the foregoing, this appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is held entitled to receive sum of Rs. 1,88,220 in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.