Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 854 (MP)

Ram Singh @ Ram v. Tahsildar Singh Baghel

2017-07-21

S.K.AWASTHI

body2017
ORDER 1. Assailing the award dated 22.9.2007 passed by Xth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity, the 'Tribunal'), Shivpuri in Claim Case No.41/2006, on the point of inadequacy of the compensation, the appellant has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act'). 2. The appellant has filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- on account of disability, which is sustained in an accident took place on 2.7.2006. According to claimant i.e. appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, needs to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out and if so, to what extent ? 3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of claimant by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimant's favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross appeal or cross objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a healthy youth of 18 years old and was earning Rs.3000/- per month by giving tuition to the students. It is submitted that the appellant sustained fracture in tibia and fibula bone of the left leg. It is further submitted that the appellant was admitted in the hospitals at Gwalior, New Delhi and Bombay. In the hospital at Bombay, the appellant was operated and a piece of bone was implanted in the leg after taking the piece of bone out from the waist bone. Due to these injuries, he sustained permanent disability and is unable to work properly. It is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,61,300/-, break up of which is as under:- S. No. Heads Amount Awarded 1. Towards medical expenses Rs. 1,08,900/- 2. Due to these injuries, he sustained permanent disability and is unable to work properly. It is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,61,300/-, break up of which is as under:- S. No. Heads Amount Awarded 1. Towards medical expenses Rs. 1,08,900/- 2. Towards permanent disability Rs. 1,22,400/- 3. Towards special diet Rs. 5,000/- 4. Towards pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- 5. Towards Transportation and attendant expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 2,61,300/- 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, the amount awarded by Tribunal towards compensation is on lower side. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company contends in support of the finding of the Claims Tribunal and submits that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable, therefore, interference by this Court for enhancement of the compensation is not warranted. 7. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the pleadings and evidence adduced on the issue of injuries sustained by the appellant, it appears that the appellant sustained fracture in tibia and fibula bone of right leg, by which 40% disability was observed by the treating Dr. Prashant Lahariya. The appellant was hospitalised for about 20 days in various hospitals including Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi and Panacea Hospital, Bombay, where bone implantation was done. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by tuition. The appellant was having qualification of 12th class and was engaged in giving tuition to the students, therefore, his income from tuition can be assessed at Rs.1800/- per month, and Rs.21,600/- per year. He has suffered 40% permanent disability, therefore, loss of income can be assessed at Rs.8,640/- per year and upon applying multiplier of 17, the amount under this head would come to Rs.1,46,880/-, that is, Rs.1,50,000/-. Apart from it, looking to the nature of injuries and on account of medical expenses, the amount awarded by the Tribunal appears to be lower side. Hence, it will be proper to enhance the compensation amount. The appellant is entitled for the following amounts:- S. No. Heads Amount Awarded 1. Towards medical expenses Rs. 1,08,900/- 2. Towards permanent disability/loss of income Rs. 1,50,000/- 3. Towards special diet Rs. 10,000/- 4. Towards pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/- 5. Towards Transportation and attendant expenses Rs. Hence, it will be proper to enhance the compensation amount. The appellant is entitled for the following amounts:- S. No. Heads Amount Awarded 1. Towards medical expenses Rs. 1,08,900/- 2. Towards permanent disability/loss of income Rs. 1,50,000/- 3. Towards special diet Rs. 10,000/- 4. Towards pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/- 5. Towards Transportation and attendant expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 3,23,900/- 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. The appellant is held entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs.62,600/- in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal making the total compensation of Rs.3,23,900/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the realisation. The said amount be paid within a period of sixty days from the date of the order passed by this Court. 9. In the facts of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.