Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 665 (MP)

Kamal Singh v. Premsingh

2018-07-30

ROHIT ARYA

body2018
ORDER 1. This appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonkatch, District-Dewas in Claim Case No. 30/2015 vide award dated 28.11.2017. 2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this appeal lie in narrow compass: On 17.12.2014 appellant along with his relatives were returning from Dewas to Jaleria village and when the appellant was standing near his motorcycle, the offending vehicle a bolero pickup bearing registration No. MP-41-GA-1603 driven by respondent No. 2 negligently and rashly dashed the appellant, due to which, appellant has sustained multiple injuries in his mouth, jaws and left leg. Appellant also sustained fracture of tibia and fibula in right leg and fracture of jaw, which was operated and plate was inserted. 3. Appellant claims that at the time of incident, he was in the vocation of electrician, aged about 38 years and was earning more than Rs. 4000/- per month. Further as per disability certificate issued by the medical Board (Ex.P-47), he as suffered 25% permanent disability; The Tribunal committed an error in not taking into account the permanent disability merely on the promise that the doctor has not been examined. He has placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of United India v. Uday Singh 2006 ACJ 2759 DB (Gujarat) and Binay Kumar v. Riyazuddin Part IV [2010] ACC 465 (Delhi) to bolster his submission. 4. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 93,380/- as compensation, breakup of which is as under : Medical bill Rs. 80,380/- Pain & Suffering Rs. 2,000/- For loss of work Rs. 4,000/- Attender Rs. 5,000/- Loss of further income Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs. 93,380/- 5. The appellant has challenged the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that the compensation awarded is meager and on the lower side and, therefore, the same deserves to be enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the award as regards quantum of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. The moot question to be addressed upon in the appeal preferred by the appellant is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding total Rs. 93,380/- to the appellant. 8. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the award as regards quantum of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. The moot question to be addressed upon in the appeal preferred by the appellant is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding total Rs. 93,380/- to the appellant. 8. Having gone through the impugned award and in the obtaining facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the Tribunal has found that the appellant is aged about 38 years. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced appropriately. 9. Therefore, the finding as regards earning of the appellant is totally perverse and absolutely unreasonable. The appellant has asserted that he was 38 years of age at the time of incident and was earning more than Rs. 4,000/- per month. In the obtaining facts and circumstance of the case, the income of appellant is assessed as Rs. 4,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal committed an error by not considering the medical evidence on record as regards permanent disability of the appellant. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the permanent disability is assessed as 10% for the injuries suffered by the appellant. Hence, the multiplier 15' is appropriate multiplier. 10. After having perused the evidence placed on record and the submissions advanced, the permanent disability assessed at 10% for the injuries referred above, the age of appellant and the fact that the accident occurred on the year 2015 and in the fitness of things and to strike balance between the parties, this Court is of the view that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced as follows : Permanent Disability {Income Rs. 4,000/- pm x disability 10% x 12 x 15} Rs. 72,000/- Pain & Suffering Rs. 10,000/- Special diet, Attender & Transportation Rs. 15,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 80,380/- For loss of work Rs. 6,000/- Total Rs. 1,83,380/- 11. As such, the the appellant is entitled for Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand Only) over and above the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e. from Rs. 93,380/-(Rupees Ninety Three Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Only) to Rs. 1,83,380/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Three Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Only) with interest as fixed by the Tribunal which is ordered accordingly to be payable to the appellant as directed by the Tribunal in the same apportionment. 93,380/-(Rupees Ninety Three Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Only) to Rs. 1,83,380/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Three Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Only) with interest as fixed by the Tribunal which is ordered accordingly to be payable to the appellant as directed by the Tribunal in the same apportionment. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be payable to the appellants within 12 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Rest of the award impugned passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. With the aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed and disposed of with no order as to costs.