Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Kumar Garg vs Haribhajan Pandey on 6 December, 2022
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 6th OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 982 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD. THR. MANAGER LEGAL
OFFICE ORION TOWER 3RD FLOOR
CITY CENTER (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI BAL KRISHNA AGRAWAL- ADVOCATE FOR THE
APPELLANT/INSURANCE COMPANY)
AND
SANTOSH KUMAR GARG S/O SHRI
RAMJILAL GARG, AGED ABOUT 35
1. YEARS, BEHIND OF K.S. MILL
NAINAGARH ROAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
HARIBHAJAN PANDEY S/O SHRI
DARBARI LAL PANDEY, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
2.
NA SIMARIYA ROAD, WARD NO. 10,
BADKHAR, THANA KOLGAWAN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRADEEP KUMAR DWIVEDI S/O
SHRI ROHANI PRASAD DWIVEDI,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NA HANUMAN
NAGAR, NAI BASTI, THANA
KOTWALI DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
02
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SMT. MEENA SINGHAL- ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT [R-
1].
&
MISC. APPEAL No. 114 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
SANTOSH KUMAR GARG S/O SHRI
RAMJILAL GARG, AGED ABOUT 41
YEARS, K.S.MILL KE PICHE
NAINAGARH ROAD MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SMT. MEENA SINGHAL-ADVOCATE FOR THE
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT)
AND
HARIBHAJAN PANDEY S/O SHRI
DARBARILAL PANDEY SIMRIYA
1. ROAD WARD NO 10 BADKHAR
THANA KOLGAWA DIST.SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
PRADEEP KUMAR DWIVEDI S/O
SHRI ROHNI PRASAD DWIVEDI
2. OCCUPATION: NA HANUMAN
NAGAR NAI BASTI THANA
KOTWALI (MADHYA PRADESH)
SHAKHA PRABHANDAK IFFCO
TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
3. LTD. ORIEN TOWER THIRD FLOOR
L.I.C. BHAVAN KE PASS CITY
CENTRE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
03
(SHRI BAL KRISHNA AGRAWAL- ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-3].
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court
passed the following:
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Morena, in Claim Case No.7/2015 on 30.06.2015
Insurance Company as well as appellant/claimant have preferred
these two appeals which are being disposed of by this common
order.
Briefly stated, the accident had taken place on 02.05.2008
when appellant was going from Satna to Panna by sitting in his
own Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.06/CA-0366 and the
driver Raju Mahor was driving the said car. At around 4.15 pm
when the appellant's car reached at Panna road ahead of Devendra
Nagar near Rajadahar Hanuman Mandir, the driver of Bolero Jeep
bearing registration No.M.P.19/T-1883 came driving rash and
negligently and dashed the car, due to which, the car of the
appellant overturned. In the said accident, the appellant sustained
deep wound in both the legs of the thigh on the right side, a wound
on the collar bone on the right side, a wound on the claw of the
right hand and a wound on the elbow, a wound on the waist on the
right side, a wound on the chest on the right side and fatal injuries
were caused in the ribs.
As regard M.A. No.114/2016, it is submitted by counsel for
the appellant/claimant that while calculating the amount of
compensation learned tribunal assessed the loss on the basis of
20% disability whereas it should be 36%.
As regard M.A. No.982/2015, Insurance Company preferred
this appeal on the ground that income assessed by the
claimant/injured Rs.15,986/- is against the evidence adduced by
them.
Both the Advocates are heard.
Perused the record.
Learned Tribunal in para 18 and 19 of its judgment
discussed the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant. Dr.
Vipin Dubey who examined the appellant/claimant in Birla
Hospital Satna has stated that he was admitted in dying situation.
His liver was already burst. He got severe fractures in all over
body. He was treated about six months in the hospital. On seeing
his body he came to the conclusion that as far as leg is concerned
he got 22-24% permanent disability. As far as right hand is
concerned, he got 10-12% disability. Left leg has also became
shortened. Learned tribunal on the basis of aforesaid came to the
conclusion that he got 20% disability. In certificate issued by the
aforesaid doctor P-168 he has not assessed the total disability. He
assessed the disability of different limbs.
Looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant
disability is enhanced from 20 to 25 %.
As far as appeal of Insurance Company regarding income of
the appellant/claimant is concerned, learned tribunal elaborately
discussed in its para 24 and 27 as well as with regard to ITR
submitted by the appellant/claimant and came to the conclusion
that his monthly income was Rs.15,986/-.
Learned counsel for the Insurance company has relied upon
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme in the cases of
Rukmani Jethani and Ors. vs. Gopal Singh and Others, 2021
ACJ 2683 and Subbulakshmi and Ors. vs. S. Lakshmi and Ors.
in Appeal (civil) No.990 of 2008 (Arising Out of SLP(C)
No.19532 of 2006).
The second submission of the learned insurance company
is that on medical expenses excess amount has been paid. Learned
tribunal in para No. 26 of the award elaborately discussed the bills
submitted by the appellant/claimant and rejected the bills Ex-P-
191, P-197, P-196, P-198, P-199, P-102, P-202, P-204, P-210, P-
213, P-215 and awarded an amount towards medical expenses
Rs.4,10,216/- despite Rs.5,41,830/- were claimed.
This Court had also gone through the aforesaid bills which
are in conformity with para No. 26 of learned tribunal. Therefore,
the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the insurance
company is sans merit.
After hearing learned counsel for the Insurance Company
and perusing the record, this court is of the opinion that the appeal
(M.A. No.982/2015) filed by the Insurance Company sans merits
and is hereby dismissed.
So far as the compensation towards future prospects is
concerned, in the light of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs
Pranay Sethi and others" [2018 (3) Mh.L.J. 70], the claimant is
entitled for compensation towards future prospect @ 40%.
As far as enhancement of award amount regarding income
of the claimant is concerned, as discussed above, it appears that
the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the
claimant.
The Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the
appellant/claimant as 15,986/- per month. Thus, his annual income
would be 1,91,832/-. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in
Pranay Sethi (supra), appellant is entitled to future prospect @
40%. After addition of future prospect, total amount comes to
Rs.2,68,564/-. Looking to the fact that appellant has suffered 25%
disability, his loss of income would be Rs.67,141/-. If multiplier
of 16 is applied to this amount, then total loss of income would be
Rs.1,074,256/-. Beside that, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded
a sum of Rs.4,47,600/- for 28 months towards loss of income.
Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.15,21,856/-. The
appellant/claimant is entitled to Rs.4,10,216/- for medical
expenses. Beside that, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.50,000/- for
attendant charges and Rs.1,00,000/- under other heads. Thus, total
amount of compensation comes to Rs.21,82,072/-. Learned Claims
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.18,03,306/-. Thus, appellant is
further entitled to receive enhanced amount of Rs.3,78,766/-. The
enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing
of claim petition till payment. Rest of the terms & conditions of
the award shall remain as it.
In view of the discussion aforesaid, the appeal (MA No. 114
of 2016) filed by appellant/claimant is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
Van
VANDANA VERMA
2022.12.07
14:51:49 -08'00'
