Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 87 (MP)

JAFAR KHAN v. HASAN KHAN

2012-01-18

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. Assailing the award dated 23rd March, 2007 passed by the 7th Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in Claim Case No. 224/2006 on the point of inadequacy of the compensation, the injured appellant has preferred this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for an accident took place on 13th March, 2006 in which he sustained injuries over head and having fracture on fronto-temporal region. The appellant had filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,75,0000/- for the injuries sustained by him. The Claims Tribunal awarded total sum of Rs. 2,02,838/-. Out of which Rs. 97,838/- in medical expenses, Rs. 1,000/- in pain and suffering, Rs. 1,000/- for maintenance, Rs. 1,000/- for conveyance, Rs. 60,000/- for disability, Rs. 36,000/- for loss of wages of three years and future loss of earning and Rs. 5,000/- due to nonappearance in the examination. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 14th December, 2011 the appellant was present in the Court. Considering all the documents which are available it was directed that he may be examined by the doctors of the Jabalpur Hospital from the head of the department of the Orthopedic as well as the Opthalmology and report be submitted indicating the functional disability. The report has been received but in the said report functional disability to the injured has been specified stating the fact that in the right eye there is total optic atrophy. As per the certificate of permanent disability Ext. P/253 the doctor has opined the disability to the extent of 30%+30%. The statement of doctor has also been recorded in this regard in the Court. The Claims Tribunal recorded a finding of disability to the extent of 30% in the right eye accepting the said certificate of permanent disability. In the said context it is to be decided that what is the percentage of the disability looking to the injuries received to the injured. Moreso how many compensation can be awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. In the said context it is to be decided that what is the percentage of the disability looking to the injuries received to the injured. Moreso how many compensation can be awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Shri Ravish Deolia, learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that it is a case of total loss of right eye and also having some effect on the left eye, however, treating it to be a case of loss of vision of one eye, just and reasonable amount of compensation may be awarded. 4. Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, contends that it is a case of disability to the extent of 30%, however, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation in the said head of Rs. 60,000/- + 36,000/- = 96,000/-. In view of foregoing, it is urged that the compensation has rightly been awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. 5. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record and the report sent by the head of department of Opthalmology and Orthopedic, it appears that for the injuries, the injured was advised for Physiotherapy and for the eye, it is said that the injured has suffered the total optic atrophy. While considering the vision in left eye, it was up to the marks but in the right eye no vision was shown. In such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, it appears to be a case of total optic atrophy in the right eye by loss of complete vision as per the certificate of Dr. Navneet Saxena, Professor of Ophthalmology of Netaji Subhash Chand Bose Medical College, Jabalpur. In a case of complete loss of vision of one eye, in the opinion of this Court, the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal of Rs. 60,000/- appears to be unreasonable which is further liable to be enhanced in lump sum by Rs. 1,50,000/-. The arguments so advanced by Smt. Ruprah that grant of loss of wages of three years and in future loss of earning separately, appears to be just. But, because in other head i.e. conveyance, attendant, pain and suffering, special diet, Rs. 3,000/- has been awarded, however, the said amount deserves to be adjusted in the said head. 1,50,000/-. The arguments so advanced by Smt. Ruprah that grant of loss of wages of three years and in future loss of earning separately, appears to be just. But, because in other head i.e. conveyance, attendant, pain and suffering, special diet, Rs. 3,000/- has been awarded, however, the said amount deserves to be adjusted in the said head. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, compensation so awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be enhanced by Rs. 1,50,000/- in addition, maintaining the amount of compensation awarded in the other head. In view of the foregoing discussions, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. The appellant is held entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% 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.