Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 377 (MP)

Sunil v. Dheeraj Sharma

2025-07-02

PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2025
ORDER 1. Considered I.A.No.5764/2025, which is an application for dispensing with service of notice on respondent No.1 who is driver of the vehicle. 2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the only question in this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation, thus he may be exempted from serving of notices to the respondent No.1 as despite payment of process fee he has not been served. 3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and I.A.No.5764/2025 stands closed and service of notice of this appeal upon respondent No.1 is dispensed with at the risk of the appellant. 4. With the consent of the parties, heard the appeal finally. 5. The appellant has filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal. 6. The factum of accident, permanent disability and liability of the Insurance Company is not in dispute. 7. That short facts of the case are that the appellant was working as cleaner of vehicle truck bearing registration No. M.P. 09 K.C. 8524. On 24.1.2010 when the said vehicle was going to Indore through Highway No.6, when it reached near rest house in Nandura Maharashtra the same was driven by the driver of the truck in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in head on collusion with another truck because of which the appellant sustained injuries in his leg, head, waist and back. He was given primary treatment in Akola hospital whereafter he was taken to Government Hospital, Khandwa where he was treated for injuries sustained by him. He suffered fracture in both of his legs which were operated upon and rods have been implanted in both the legs. He also sustained hip joint fracture. He was treated subsequently in M.Y. Hospital, Indore. 8. The appellant filed application under section 166 of M.V. Act for grant of compensation due to the injuries sustained by him in the above mentioned accident. He also sustained hip joint fracture. He was treated subsequently in M.Y. Hospital, Indore. 8. The appellant filed application under section 166 of M.V. Act for grant of compensation due to the injuries sustained by him in the above mentioned accident. The claims tribunal after considering the material which was brought on record awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/- for permanent disability suffered by the appellant and amount of Rs.30,000/- was awarded for grievous injuries, Rs.7,203/- was awarded for medical expenses and amount of Rs.20,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering and after adding the amount awarded in conventional heads a total sum of Rs.1,47,203/- was awarded, but the same was reduced to Rs.73,601/- by holding that it was a case of contributory negligence. Thus 50% of the total compensation was only awarded to the appellant. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims tribunal has erred in treating the accident a result of contributory negligence in the context of the appellant / claimant because he was not the driver of the vehicle, he was working as cleaner of the vehicle and he was in the vehicle in the capacity of the cleaner thus this could not be the case of contributory negligence. He submits that at best the case could be treated as one of composite negligence and in such a case it was for the claimant to elect one of the offending vehicles, thus the reduction of the compensation by 50% is not sustained in the eyes of law. He further submits that the claims tribunal has not even assessed the income of the claimant / appellant and even after recording in para 21 of the award that the appellant has suffered 25% permanent disability has awarded a meager sum of Rs.50,000/- for the same. He further submits that nothing has been awarded for future prospects. He also submits that the amount awarded in conventional head is also rather less. He also submitted that the claims tribunal not only ignored to assess income but even the method of applying the multiplier was not adopted. As such he has prayed for enhancement of compensation. 10. He further submits that nothing has been awarded for future prospects. He also submits that the amount awarded in conventional head is also rather less. He also submitted that the claims tribunal not only ignored to assess income but even the method of applying the multiplier was not adopted. As such he has prayed for enhancement of compensation. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 / Insurance Company supported the findings of the award and has stated that the assessment of injury and consequential compensation for the same is correct and proper in view of the fact that the appellant can continue to work as cleaner even after the injuries sustained by him. He also submitted that compensation awarded in other heads is just and proper, thus no interference is warranted in the award. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 12. The claims tribunal while assailing the evidence has discussed the factum of accident from para 11 to 14 of the award. The tribunal has concluded that the accident has occurred for the negligence of drivers of both the vehicles, which has resulted in head on collusion. In para 15 of the award findings have been recorded by the claims tribunal regarding contributory negligence by observing that as the drivers of both the vehicles were at fault thus it is a case of contributory negligence, thus decided to restrict the amount of compensation to the 50% of the total calculation. This finding of the claims tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the simple reason that the claimant was not in control of the vehicle. He was on the vehicle in the capacity of cleaner. Thus there could not have been a contribution on his part until unless it is proved that the cleaner distracted the driver of the vehicle which resulted in the accident. No such evidence has been brought by any of the parties in this regard. Thus it cannot be held that the claimant / appellant has contributed in the accident in any manner whatever. Thus the finding of the claims tribunal is hereby set aside and it is held that it was the case of composite negligence at best. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sushila Bhadoriya & Ors. v. M.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr . Thus the finding of the claims tribunal is hereby set aside and it is held that it was the case of composite negligence at best. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sushila Bhadoriya & Ors. v. M.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr . 2005 (1) MPLJ 372 has held in Para 23 and 24 that in such cases where the joint tort-feasors are liable it was choice of the claimant to implead either of the tort-feasors. In the present case it was the decision of the claimant to implead the offending vehicle of respondent No.3 Insurance Company which cannot be found fault with. Thus it is held that the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation in the case. 13. That as regards the quantum of compensation it is seen from the finding of para 21 of the award that the claims tribunal has concluded that the appellant has suffered 25% permanent disability in view of the statement of doctor (PW.2) as well as the certificate of permanent disability Exhibit P/4. The claims tribunal after assessing the accident of permanent disability sustained by the appellant went on in para 22 to record a finding that the appellant can undertake alternate employment in view of the disability suffered by him and thus instead of assessing the quantum of compensation has awarded a lumpsum of Rs.50,000/-. As the income itself was not assessed by the claims tribunal thus it does not care to adopt the method of multiplier and to add future prospects in the income. This method of grant of compensation cannot be sustained. In the considered view of this Court and in terms of law as laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680 the claims tribunal should have assessed the income of the claimant by considering the prevalent rate of wages at the time of accident and should have added the amount for future prospects and should have applied the multiplier in accordance with the age of the claimant. 14. At the time of accident the appellant was working as cleaner of the truck which is undisputable in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the evidence brought on record. 14. At the time of accident the appellant was working as cleaner of the truck which is undisputable in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the evidence brought on record. Thus in the considered view of the Court the income of the appellant viz a viz the date of accident and considering the prevalent wages at the time is taken at Rs.4000/- per month. On the date of accident the age of the deceased was 24 years. As such in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) 40% has to be added in the head for future prospects and looking to the age of the claimant multiplier of 18 is to be applied. Thus after the above assessment, the total amount of compensation for sustaining permanent disabling to the appellant / claimant comes to Rs.3,02,400/-. As regards the other heads in the considered view of this Court the amount as awarded by the claims tribunal is just and proper, thus no interference is made in the same. Apart from the above amounts, it is clear from the nature of injuries that the appellant must have lost some period of work during his treatment, thus for loss of wages an amount of Rs.8000/- is awarded. The total compensation after above modifications comes to Rs.3,77,603/-. The claims tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.73,601/- to appellant. Thus after deducting the same, the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,04,002/- over and above what has already been awarded by the claims tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the same rate and in the same manner as awarded by the claims tribunal. Rest of the condition of the award shall remain intact. 15. The appellant has valued the present appeal at Rs.40,000/-, thus the appellant has to pay deficit Court fees which he shall pay within a period of one month from today. 16. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.