Madhya Pradesh High Court
Barelal vs Puran Singh on 8 October, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Bench Gwalior
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
MA 471 of 2015
Barelal
Vs.
Puran Singh and Ors.
===================================================
Shri BD Verma, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Kamal S. Rochlani, counsel for the respondent No.3/ Insurance
Company.
====================================================
Judgment
(Delivered on 08/10/2021)
Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J:-
Appellant- Barelal has preferred the present miscellaneous appeal
u/S. 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 29/01/2015
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, [in short'' the Claims Tribunal'']
Ambah, District Morena in Claim Case No.99/2011, whereby the appellant
has been awarded Rs.33,350/- as compensation from the date of filing of
claim petition i.e. 30/08/2011 along-with interest @ 7% per annum.
(2) Facts, in short, are that on 19/01/2011, at about 12:00 pm, the
appellant was travelling in a taxi bearing registration no.MP-07R-2447 to
Ambah. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of said vehicle, the
vehicle was overturned at Morena-Ambah Road as a result of which, the
appellant got various injuries. He was brought to Primary Health Centre,
Ambah and thereafter, he was referred to District Hospital, Morena and then
referred to Birla Hospital. He was remained hospitalized in Birla Hospital,
Gwalior from 22/01/2011 to 26/01/2011. During the aforesaid period, his
surgery was done. Due to the aforesaid accident, the appellant has got
permanent disability on his left hand. At the time of accident, he was aged
about 43 years and was a mason earning Rs.7,500/- per month and after the
said accident, he is unable to perform his work.
(3) The respondent No.3/ Insurance Company denied the aforesaid
averments and have submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly
awarded the compensation considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and the permanent disability is on his left hand, therefore, the working
of appellant has not been affected. Hence, prayed that this miscellaneous
appeal deserves is devoid of merits and deserves to be be dismissed.
(4) In the present appeal, the grounds raised by the appellant are that the
impugned Award dated 29/01/2015 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is
against the settled principle of law. The learned Claims Tribunal has not
properly scrutinized the evidence produced before it. Prior to accident, the
appellant was a mason aged around 43 years and was hale and hearty and
was earning Rs.7,500/- per month. The learned Claims tribunal has erred in
assessing the monthly income of the appellant and has also not considered
the hospitalization period of the appellant along-with the fact that his left
hand was operated and steel plates were inserted. The treatment of appellant
was remained continued for a long period. In future, again necessary
treatment requirements like removal of screw and plates from the hand of
the appellant were done. This fact has not been considered by the learned
Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant was, at least, entitled for
compensation of Rs.40,000/- The amount of compensation awarded by the
learned Claims Tribunal is on lower side and the same should be enhanced
reasonably. Therefore, it is prayed that the compensation amount of
Rs.33,350/- may be enhanced to Rs.40,000/-.
(5) Per contra, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed
the submissions of the appellant's counsel and have submitted that the
learned Claims Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned Award. The Claims
Tribunal in paragraph 10 of the Award has observed that the nature of injury
sustained by the appellant is not a permanent disability. As no documentary
proof was produced by the appellant before the Claims Tribunal, therefore,
the factum of permanent disability could not be considered. The Claims
Tribunal has rightly decided the Issue No.2 that there is no permanent
disability to the appellant.
(6) Heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties as well as perused the
record of the Claims Tribunal.
(7) On perusal of the record of the Claims Tribunal, it is apparent that till
date the appellant has not produced any documentary proof that during
treatment, his left hand was operated and steel plates were inserted.
However, it is not in dispute that the accident took place on 19/01/2011 and
in the aforesaid accident, the appellant while travelling in the said vehicle,
got injuries and he is a mason and his left hand has been affected. The
Claims Tribunal, in paragraph 16 of its Award, has observed that considering
the future prospect of the appellant, Rs.2,000/- has been awarded.
(8) As the appellant is a mason and his left hand has been affected,
therefore, the amount of Rs.2,000/-of future prospect, awarded by the
Claims Tribunal is hereby enhanced to Rs.5,000/- and the appellant is
entitled to get the following compensation:-
Heads Compensation awarded
Pains and suffering Rs. 20,000/-
Medical Expenses Rs. 8,350/-
Conveyance Rs. 1,000/-
Special diet Rs. 1,000/-
Assistant expenses Rs. 1,000/-
Future prospect Rs. 5,000/-
__________________________________________
Total Rs. 36,350/-
(9) In view of aforesaid, the impugned Award dated 29/01/2015 passed
by Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No.99/2011 stands modified. The
aforesaid enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum, as fixed by
Claims Tribunal, from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
The said amount be paid within a period of sixty days from the date of order
passed by this Court.
(10) The present appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
Judge
MKB
Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK
MAHENDRA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh,
KUMAR BARIK 2.5.4.20=f592da990684fe30f8e1e29a4a1a9e345
1ee450d883083a8e4cc8020eee6f7cb,
cn=MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK
Date: 2021.10.08 18:56:57 +05'30'
