Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 850 (MP)

Shankar Prasad v. Nafees Khan

2010-08-20

N.K.MODY

body2010
ORDER 1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 30.3.07 passed by II Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in claim case No. 42/05. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 19,000/- with interest to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury which he sustained in an accident and respondent No.3 was exonerated. According to claimant i.e. appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced and findings relating to exoneration of respondent No.3 be set aside. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so to what extent and also whether respondent No.3 was rightly exonerated? 2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was aged 29 years at the time of accident, which took place on 31.1.05. It is submitted that appellant sustained fracture of nasal bone. It is submitted that appellant was hospitalized for some days, where appellant was operated. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 19,000/-, breakup of which is as under: - Rs.4,000/- Towards medical expenses. Rs. 15,000/- Towards pain and sufferings. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant sustained permanent disability up to the extent of 20%. It is submitted that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side as on number of heads no amount has been awarded. Learned counsel further submits that while allowing the claim petition, learned Tribunal has exonerated the respondent No.3 on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence. It is submitted that even if it is assumed that driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence, then too, since the offending vehicle was insured, therefore, learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating the respondent No.3. It is submitted that even if it is assumed that driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence, then too, since the offending vehicle was insured, therefore, learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating the respondent No.3. Learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced and the findings relating to exoneration of respondent No., 3 be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no further enhancement can be made. It is submitted that since there was violation of terms of the policy, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in exonerating the respondent No.3. It is submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 6. I have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimant on the issue of injuries sustained by appellant. After taking into consideration all the evidence on record it appears that in a injury case where appellant sustained fracture, amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate. In my opinion, it will be proper to enhance the compensation. Appellant is entited for the following amount: Rs. 25,000/- Towards grievous injuries Rs. 5,000/- Towards medical expenses. Rs.5,000/- Towards special diet. Rs.5,000/- Towards transport expenses. Rs. 5,000/- Towards expenses incurred on attenders. Rs. 5,000/- Towards pain and sufferings. Rs. 50,000/- Total 7. In other words, in view of this, the claimant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 19,000/- byway of compensation for the injuries sustained by appellant in the accident. The enhanced amount of Rs. 31,000/ shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. 8. So far as liability of respondent No.3 is concerned, since the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3, therefore, even if there was violation of terms of the policy, then too, right to recover ought to have been given to the respondent No.3, instead of exoneration. Since respondents No. 1 and 2 were ex parte before the learned Tribunal as well, therefore, impugned award so far as liability is concerned, is modified to the extent that respondents No.3 shall pay the awarded amount to the appellant and shall have a right to recover the same from respondents No. 1 and 2. Since respondents No. 1 and 2 were ex parte before the learned Tribunal as well, therefore, impugned award so far as liability is concerned, is modified to the extent that respondents No.3 shall pay the awarded amount to the appellant and shall have a right to recover the same from respondents No. 1 and 2. In execution proceedings respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall be at liberty to demonstrate that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident. 9. With the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed of.