Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 740 (MP)

Ganesh Kumar v. Munna Lal Goyal

2016-08-26

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2016
ORDER 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the award dated 18.2.2008 passed by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No.19/2007, whereby Claims Tribunal has not granted any compensation on account of permanent disability caused to the claimant and verified by the treating doctor on the hyper technical ground that the claimant had not produced any certificate in regard to permanent disability from the Medical Board and the witness doctor has though certified 20% permanent disability in Ex.P-10, whereby it was found that there was shortening of 3/4th inch in the right leg on the ground that doctor had not produced any scientific methodology based on which percentage of disability was assessed and also on the ground that doctor had not noted length of both the legs to show the difference in their length has refused to grant any compensation on account of permanent disability. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that claimant was since working as a skilled electrician and earning Rs.200/- per day, therefore, Court should have taken into consideration the aspect of permanent disability and the income and should have awarded amount on admitted permanent disability. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Manoj Rathore v. Anil Raheja and others, as reported in 2012 ACJ 1459, wherein the Supreme Court after adverting to the evidence on record produced by the appellant that he had suffered injury of right thigh and had become permanently disabled reducing his working capacity relying on the oral testimony of the doctor based on the comparative study of both of his legs had awarded a lump sum amount in favour of the claimant. In the present case also there is evidence to the effect that 20% disability was caused due to fracture in the bone of thigh and tebia febula on account of shortening and claimant was also suffering from muscle dystrophy. In the opinion of this Court the Claims Tribunal should have considered and should have granted compensation on account of permanent disability. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has submitted that a broken leg bone can lead to a limb length discrepancy if it heels in a shorten position. In the opinion of this Court the Claims Tribunal should have considered and should have granted compensation on account of permanent disability. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has submitted that a broken leg bone can lead to a limb length discrepancy if it heels in a shorten position. This is more likely to happen if the bone was broken into many pieces and has suggested that the Claims Tribunal was justified in not awarding any amount on account of permanent disability. It is further submitted that as per the standards prescribed, no permanent disability can be attributed for first half inch and thereafter for next 1/4 shortening only 5% disability can be accepted. 3. This contention of the Insurance Company regarding 5% disability is rejected on account of the ratio of the decision in the case of Manoj Rathore v. Anil Raheja and others, therefore, 20% disability is to be accepted as the evidence of the doctor has remain unrebutted throughout. 4. It has come on record that the Claims Tribunal has considered the age of claimant as 31 years and his minimum monthly income had Rs.3000/-, therefore, in view of law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, as reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 , the claimant is entitled to get multiplier of 16. Thus, his annual income will be Rs.36,000/- @ Rs.3000/- per month. No deduction is to be made in case of disability, then the notional income will be Rs.36,000/- when this figure of Rs.36,000/- is multiplier by 16 then it comes out to Rs.5,76,000/-. As 20% permanent disability in relation to overall body has been accepted, this amount will come to Rs.1,15,200/- (One lac fifteen thousand two hundred only). Thus, in view of the Principle laid down in the case of Manoj Rathore v. Anil Raheja and others in the opinion of this Court, claimant is entitled to further sum of Rs.1,15,200/- along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim till the date of actual payment. Rest of the award in respect of interest, cost and direction to the Insurance Company to pay and recover from respondent No.2 shall remain intact. Arun Sharma for appellant; A. K. Agarwal for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.