Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 225 (MP)

Parvez Khan v. Tekram

2012-02-22

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. Assailing the award dated 10.4.2008 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara in Claim Case No. 73 of 2005 on the point of inadequacy of the compensation, the injured-appellant has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for an accident that took place on 4.1.2005 in which he sustained injuries, i.e., amputation of left hand. 2. The appellant had filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,10,000 for the injuries sustained by him. The reply to the claim petition was filed and after recording the evidence, the Tribunal has awarded the total sum of Rs. 1,50,000. The certificate of permanent disability (Exh. P40) is available on record. The Tribunal believing the certificate of permanent disability (Exh. P40) recorded a finding as regards the permanent disability to the extent of 60 per cent but directed to pay the compensation in lump sum. 3. As the incident occurred, negligence of driver in driving the offending vehicle, the issue of liability jointly and severally to pay compensation have been decided recording the findings in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal. None of those findings have been assailed at the instance of the respondents, i.e., owner, driver or insurance company by filing the cross appeal or the cross-objection, however it is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail to burden the judgment on the said issues. It is only the inadequacy of the compensation which has been assailed, however the arguments in detail have been considered in succeeding paras. 4. Mr. R.S. Saini, the learned counsel representing the appellant, contends that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, its nature, the certificate of permanent disability, percentage of disability as recorded by the Tribunal is on lower side commensurate to the future loss of earnings on account of disability. The earnings has been accepted on lower side and the multiplier has also not been properly applied for awarding the future loss of earnings. Under other heads like medical expenses, attendant charges, conveyance, special diet, mental pain and suffering, loss of wages during treatment, the amount so awarded is also inadequate. In view of the foregoing submissions, enhancement of the compensation so awarded by the Claims Tribunal is prayed for. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Under other heads like medical expenses, attendant charges, conveyance, special diet, mental pain and suffering, loss of wages during treatment, the amount so awarded is also inadequate. In view of the foregoing submissions, enhancement of the compensation so awarded by the Claims Tribunal is prayed for. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Pranay Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent insurance company, contends in support of the findings of the Claims Tribunal and submitted that the compensation as awarded by the impugned award appears to be just and reasonable, however, interference by this court for enhancement of the compensation is not warranted. 6. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record it is apparent that the injured was a conductor and on account of the accident his left hand was amputated. As per Part II of Schedule I the amputation below tip of olecranon, disability would be 70 per cent. If we accept the earnings of a conductor to be Rs. 2,500 per month on the date of accident, then as per percentage of the disability so specified in the Schedule to Workmen's Compensation Act which is applicable, future loss of earnings can be determined applying the Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. If we accept loss of earnings at Rs. 20,000 per annum and apply multiplier of 18, then loss of future earnings comes to Rs. 3,60,000. Under the medical expenses the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 45,000. If it is maintained, then the sum comes to Rs. 4,05,000. The compensation so awarded towards mental pain and suffering at Rs. 5,000 is inadequate which is further enhanced by Rs. 45,000 and under loss of wages during treatment, attendant, conveyance and special diet Rs. 35,000 is further added, thereby total sum comes to Rs. 4,85,000. If we deduct the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 awarded by the Claims Tribunal, then net enhanced amount comes to Rs. 3,35,000 which shall be payable along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. Appellant is held entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,35,000 in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal making the total compensation Rs. 4,85,000. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. Appellant is held entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,35,000 in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal making the total compensation Rs. 4,85,000. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. In the facts of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.