Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 113 (MP)

Raju v. Gopal

2016-02-11

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2016
ORDER 1. It is submitted by counsel for the parties that liablity on the insurance company is not in dispute, therefore, the appeal can be heard finally with consent. 2. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award dated 22.6.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No.814/2013. 3. In brief, the appellant-claimant had filed the claim case before the Tribunal stating therein that on 28.4.2013, the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.MP-47-P-0777 in which the appellant had received the grievous injuries and had suffered permanent disability. Accordingly, the claim was raised. 4. The Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence laid by both the parties had reached to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.MP-47-P-0777. The Tribunal further found that there was no violation of the policy condition and the insurance company is liable to pay the amount. The finding has also been recorded that the appellant had suffered permanent disability in the accident and accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,29,600/- for permanent disability. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, Rs.9,000/- for loss of income for three months, Rs.7,00,000/- for the actual medical expenses, Rs.9,000/- for attender's expenses, Rs.10,000/- for special diet and Rs.5,000/- for transportation. Hence, the Tribunal has passed an award of Rs.8,87,600/- along with the interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in ascertaining the monthly income of the appellant and also the extent of disability the appellant has suffered and the amount awarded under the different heads is also on lower side. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company has supported the impugned judgment. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that Dr. Ashutosh Verma (AW2) was examined before the Claims Tribunal, who has disclosed that in the accident, the appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 69% in respect to lower limb of the body. He had also disclosed in detail the nature and extent of permanent disability. 8. Considering the statement of Dr. Ashutosh Verma (AW2) was examined before the Claims Tribunal, who has disclosed that in the accident, the appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 69% in respect to lower limb of the body. He had also disclosed in detail the nature and extent of permanent disability. 8. Considering the statement of Dr. Ashutosh Verma (AW2) as also the nature and extent of disability which the appellant had suffered, the Tribunal had committed an error in ascertaining the disability to the extent of 20% in reference to the whole body. Whereas, the evidence clearly reflects that the disability in reference to whole body ought to have assessed as 35%. The Tribunal has also committed the error in ascertaining the income of the appellant as Rs.100/- per day i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month. Whereas the accident took place in the year 2013 and therefore considering the year of the accident and the nature of work, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income, as Rs.4,000/- p.m. The Tribunal had rightly applied the multiplier of 18. Thus, in reference to 35% disability and monthly income of Rs.4,000/- p.m., the appellant is found entitled to a sum of Rs.3,02,400/- on account of permanent disability which was suffered by him. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- under the head of actual medical expenses. The amount which has been awarded under the head of loss of income is on the lower side. The record reflects that the appellant had remained hospitalized for sufficiently long period and the loss of income at least for five months ought to have been awarded. The loss of income for five months @ 4,000/- p.m. comes to Rs.20,000/-. 9. Considering the nature and extent of injuries the period he had remained under treatment, he is also found entitled for Rs.10,000/- for the attender's expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and Rs.10,000/- for transportation charges. In addition, he is also entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and Rs.25,000/- for loss of amenities in life. Thus, the appellant is entitled for total compensation comes to Rs.11,07,400/- whereas, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.8,87,600/-. 10. Hence, the appellant is found entitled to a sum of Rs.2,19,800/- over and above the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the appellant is entitled for total compensation comes to Rs.11,07,400/- whereas, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.8,87,600/-. 10. Hence, the appellant is found entitled to a sum of Rs.2,19,800/- over and above the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount will bear interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal and will be governed by the same conditions as imposed by the Tribunal. The appeal is therefore, allowed with costs.