Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 332 (MP)

Mohan Singh v. Jagdish Prasad

2010-03-18

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 23rd December, 2006 passed by learned IV MACT, Dewas in claim case No. 67/2006. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,88,500 with interest to the Appellant by way of compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident occurred on 10th October, 2005. 2. Appellant had preferred a claim petition under Section 166 and of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,00,000. According to the Appellant compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and deserves enhancement, however, by filing the appeal inadequacy of the compensation has been assailed. 3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in details. Such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable to pay compensation, etc., because the Tribunal has already recorded the findings in favour of the Appellant. None of those finding have challenged at the instance of the Respondents, i.e., owner/driver/ Insurance Company by filing cross-objection or cross appeal. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on all these issues. 4. It is a case in which the injured is of 17 years of age suffered with head injury, fracture in jaw, rupture of liver and fracture is ribs having 97.5% memory loss. The Tribunal found it a case of total loss of earning. However, accepting the earning of the injured Rs. 15,000 per annum applied the multiplier of 16 as per the age and awarded Rs. 2,40,000 in the head of future loss of earning, Rs. 1,33,500 towards medical expenses. Rs. 10,000 in the head of pain and sufferings and Rs. 5,000 for transportation, making a total compensation of Rs. 3,88,500. The Appellant is present alongwith his Advocate Mr. Hemant Sharma, however, he has been examined by the Doctor and was found it to be a case of living corpse. Mr. 1,33,500 towards medical expenses. Rs. 10,000 in the head of pain and sufferings and Rs. 5,000 for transportation, making a total compensation of Rs. 3,88,500. The Appellant is present alongwith his Advocate Mr. Hemant Sharma, however, he has been examined by the Doctor and was found it to be a case of living corpse. Mr. Sharma, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has strenuously urged that the injured was doing the work of agriculture, milk vending and other works at the time of accident i.e., on 10th October, 2005, however, the calculation of the future loss of earnings as made by the Tribunal accepting the notional earning and the compensation as allowed is inadequate, which is liable to be enhanced. It is also contended by him that the injured/Appellant requires an attendant for his whole life, therefore, some amount may be allowed in the said head. It is further contended by him that in the head of pain and suffering Rs. 10,000 as allowed to him is inadequate, which is liable to be enhanced. Some amount may further be awarded in the head of loss of amenities of life and also some amount in the head of special diet may be allowed. In view of the said submissions, prayer is made is to allow this appeal and to grant just and reasonable compensation. 5. On the other hand Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Insurance Company has relied upon the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal and further argued that the compensation awarded is just, proper and reasonable and not liable to be interfered with. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 6. After having heard the rival submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record as well as the statement of the Doctor and also looking to the Appellant present in the Court, who has been examined by the Doctor, in the opinion of this Court, it is a case of living corpse. A human being has to be lived, having dependent on others is a crush to him and I found it correct. Thus, the compensation deserves to be awarded considering the aforesaid commensurate to his age and earning capacities. A human being has to be lived, having dependent on others is a crush to him and I found it correct. Thus, the compensation deserves to be awarded considering the aforesaid commensurate to his age and earning capacities. In this context, it is seen from the record that the injured is a minor on the date of accident i.e., 17 years of age, but he belongs to village background where the father and mother are having the agriculture and doing the work of milk vending. In such circumstances, looking to such background, it may be safely presumed that the injured may be an assisting hand to his family members. Thus, for such assistance, his earning at least Rs. 2,000 per month can be safely presumed to the family. One found it is a case of total loss of earning, the annual loss comes to Rs. 24,000 per annum. As per the age if multiplier of 16 is made applicable, then the future loss of earning comes to the tune of Rs. 3,84,000, which deseves to be allowed. On perusal of the documents and the injured present in the Court, I found it as a case in which he is required one attendant for his whole life. In the said head, Rs. 1,00,000 may be awarded with a view that if such amount is deposited, then by getting an interest, his family member may provide him an assistance to maintain his life. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,33,500 towards medical expenses, however, the said amount of compensation may be maintained in addition to Rs. 10,000 towards future medical expenses making a total in the head of medical expense Rs. 1,50,000, Rs. 50,000 deserves to be granted in the head of pain and suffering and Rs. 50,000 in the head of amenities of life. Simultaneously, Rs. 10,000 further deserves to be granted in the head of transportation and special diet. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation comes to the tune of Rs. 7,44,000. If we deduct the amount of compensation as allowed by the Tribunal Rs. 3,88,000 from the said amount, then remaining amount comes to the tune of Rs. 3,56,000 which is liable to be enhanced. This, during the course of hearing and on taking note of the aforesaid considerations in my opinion the award passed by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be enhanced by Rs. 3,88,000 from the said amount, then remaining amount comes to the tune of Rs. 3,56,000 which is liable to be enhanced. This, during the course of hearing and on taking note of the aforesaid considerations in my opinion the award passed by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be enhanced by Rs. 3,56,000/- without affecting the direction of the Tribunal regarding depositing the amount of compensation. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed in part and the Appellant is held entitled to receive total sum of Rs. 3,56,000 in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.