Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 84 (MP)

Bhuttu @ Gattu v. Gurupreet Singh

2011-01-20

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
ORDER 1. This appeal under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 20.7.2009 passed by the VIth Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 54/2008. 2. The appellant had suffered injury in the road motor accident which had taken place on 18.5.2008, accordingly he had filed the claim petition before the tribunal. The tribunal found that the appellant had suffered 25% permanent disability in reference to the whole body and awarded following amount under the different heads ;- (1) Actual medical expenses Rs. 8,385/- (2) On account of permanent disability Rs. 1,53,000- (3) Physical and mental pain and suffering, Rs. 30,000/- and loss of future income (4) Attendant charges, special diet, etc. Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 2,01,385/ (round figure Rs. 2,01.500/-) The tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till realization on the aforesaid amount. 3. 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 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. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has committed an error in calculating the permanent disability of the appellant in reference to the whole body ignoring the nature of the permanent disability and the medical evidence on record. He has further submitted that the tribunal has not awarded any amount for the artificial limb though it is a case of amputation, and that the amount which has been awarded by the tribunal under the other heads is also inadequate. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company supporting the award submitted that no error has been committed by the tribunal in passing the impugned award and that there is no scope for interference by this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Dr. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company supporting the award submitted that no error has been committed by the tribunal in passing the impugned award and that there is no scope for interference by this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Dr. Jayant Sharma (AW 2) has stated before the tribunal that on account of the injuries received by the appellant, his left leg above the knee was amputated. The doctor had assessed the permanent disability in the left leg to the extent of 89%. The tribunal has rightly relied upon the evidence of the doctor and rightly recorded the finding in respect of the 89% permanent disability in the particular limb of the body, but the tribunal has committed an error in holding that the appellant had suffered only 25% permanent disability in reference to the whole body. While recording such finding the tribunal has not appreciated the nature and extent of the permanent disability which the appellant had suffered. 8. It is also worth noting that the appellant is only aged about 32 years and he will have to suffer permanent disability throughout his life. Thus keeping in view the entire evidence on record, it is found just and proper to hold that the appellant had suffered 50% permanent disability in reference to the whold body. Such finding has been recorded keeping in view the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Jitendra Kumar v. Virendra Singh and others reported in 2010 ACJ 1618 and the judgment of this Court in the matter of Samrath S/o. Late Shri Bhanwarlal Ji v. Branch Manager. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & others reported in MACD 2009 (1) (MP) 258, which have been relied upon by the appellant and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of G. Gnanam v. Matropolitan Transport Corporation reported in 2009 ACJ 852 . The tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000/- and rightly applied the multiplier of 17. Thus the loss of earning due to permanent disability comes to Rs. 36,000/- X17 X 50% = 3,06,000/-. The tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000/- and rightly applied the multiplier of 17. Thus the loss of earning due to permanent disability comes to Rs. 36,000/- X17 X 50% = 3,06,000/-. It is also worth noting that since left leg of the appellant has been amputated above the knee level, therefore, he would be required to use an artificial limb and will also need the help of an at tender throughout his life, therefore, he is found entitled to a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under this head. In addition to this he will also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/- under the head of physical and mental pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of income during the treatment period, Rs. 15,000/- towards the special diet, attendant charges, transportation charges, etc. during the treatment period and Rs. 8,385/- towards actual medical expenses. Thus, he is entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,69,385/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till realization. 9. The appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.