Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 761 (MP)

CHANDER SINGH v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

2011-07-12

N.K.MODY

body2011
JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. This is an appeal filed by the claimant u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 12.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neemuch in Claim Case No. 108 of 2005. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,93,641 with interest to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury which he sustained in an accident. According to claimant, i.e., appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, needs to be enhanced. 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? 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, who is liable for paying compensation, etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of the claimant by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimant's favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross-appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was aged 35 years at the time of accident, which took place on 23.10.2005. Appellant was hospitalised at Civil Hospital, Indore. Appellant sustained fracture of thigh of the right leg and ulna. Appellant was a driver and his monthly earning was Rs. 4,500. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,93,641, break-up of which is as under : Towards permanent disability Rs. 1,20,000 Towards pain and suffering Rs. 20,000 Towards special diet Rs. 5,000 Towards medical expenses Rs. 48,641 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was hospitalised several times. It is submitted that for the first time on 4.1.2006 there was an amputation of the left leg below knee and again on 19.3.2006 there was an amputation below joint elbow of the appellant. 20,000 Towards special diet Rs. 5,000 Towards medical expenses Rs. 48,641 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was hospitalised several times. It is submitted that for the first time on 4.1.2006 there was an amputation of the left leg below knee and again on 19.3.2006 there was an amputation below joint elbow of the appellant. It is submitted that since the appellant was a driver by profession, therefore, it is a case of 100 per cent disability while learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1,00,000 on account of loss of income. It is submitted that since the appellant is aged 35 years, therefore, the learned Tribunal committed error in applying multiplier of 10. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principle of assessment for determination of loss of future earnings of the injured with reference to the extent of his permanent disablement. Learned counsel prays that the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. 4. Mr. H.C. Jindal, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no case is made out for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The learned counsel further submits that compensation is being claimed on the ground that the appellant was a driver by profession but no driving licence was placed on record to demonstrate that the appellant was a driver. It is submitted that since appellant has failed to establish that the appellant was a driver possessing a valid driving licence, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation at Rs. 1,000 per month. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed. 5. From perusal of record it is evident that at the relevant time the appellant was driving a truck on which the accident took place. The case of the appellant that in the said accident appellant lost his licence which was issued by the R.T.O., Mandsaur. This part of statement has been believed by the learned Tribunal. It was not the case of the respondent No. 3 that the appellant was not possessing valid licence and the appellant was not a driver by profession. 6. The case of the appellant that in the said accident appellant lost his licence which was issued by the R.T.O., Mandsaur. This part of statement has been believed by the learned Tribunal. It was not the case of the respondent No. 3 that the appellant was not possessing valid licence and the appellant was not a driver by profession. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the fact that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal wherein it was found that appellant was professional driver which has not been challenged by the respondent No. 1, this court is of the view that learned Tribunal committed error in assessing income of the appellant at Rs. 1,000 per month. So far as salary is concerned, the accident is of the year 2005 and in the district of Neemuch the salary of the appellant ought to have been assessed as Rs. 2,500 per month. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the appellant is entitled for the following amount after applying multiplier of 11 (sic 16) : Towards permanent disability Rs. 4,80,000 Towards pain and suffering Rs. 20,000 Towards special diet Rs. 5,000 Towards medical expenses Rs. 50,000 Total Rs. 5,55,000 8. After taking into consideration all the evidence on record this court is of the view that it will be proper to enhance the compensation by Rs. 3,61,359. In other words, in view of this, the appellant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 5,55,000 by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by appellant in the accident. The enhanced amount of Rs. 3,61,359 shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. 80 per cent of rest of the amount shall be deposited in a fixed deposit in the name of appellant in the nearest nationalised bank in the area where the appellant is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. account of appellant, which shall be opened by the appellant from where appellant can withdraw the amount as per his needs. With the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.