Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mangal Singh vs Jeetu @ Jitendra Sahu on 20 April, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 20 th OF APRIL, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 696 of 2013
BETWEEN:-
MANGAL SINGH S/O JAI SINGH KAHAR, AGED ABOUT
59 YEARS, R/O IN FRONT OF TECTOR SCHEME, BETUL
ROAD, TEHSIL ITARASI, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI S.D. MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. JEETU @ JITENDRA SAHU S/O GOKUL PRASAD
SAHU, OCCUPATION: DRIVER, R/O NALA
MOHALLA, BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR, TEHSIL
ITARASI SIRALI, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ABDUL VAHID S/O ABDUL SHARIF, R/O NALA
MOHALLA, TEHSIL ITARSI, DISTRICT
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE,
NEHRU NAGAR, TEHSIL -ITARSI DISTRICT
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 THOUGH SERVED)
(RESPONDENT NO.3 BY SHRI VIVEK SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant being
aggrieved of award dated 22.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Motor
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 4/21/2023
6:42:21 PM
Accident Claims Tribunal to the Court of 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Hoshangabad (Link Court Itarsi) in Motor Accident Claim Case
No.10/2012 seeking enhancement of the compensation amount on account of
an incident, which took place on 03.10.2011 resulting in amputation of left leg
of the appellant below knee.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant
was working as a truck driver and there was 100% occupational disability,
therefore, the compensation should have been awarded accordingly.
3. Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent
No.3/Insurance Company reading Paragraph 13 of the impugned award submits
that Claims Tribunal has not accepted the income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/-
per month and has also not accepted the factum of he being a driver.
4 . After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through
the record, as far as factum of claimant being a driver is concerned, he had
examined Rajkumar Malaiya as a witness, who admits in his testimony that
Mangal Singh i.e. the present appellant was working as a driver in Vijay Road
Lines, which belongs to Harish Kumar Shah. He was driving the Truck No.
MP-05-H-0769. He also admits that the certificate which has been issued is on
the letterhead of Vijay Roadlines. Though, he admits that it does not contain his
name but it makes it clear that the name of the firm is mentioned and certificate
was issued on behalf of the firm. It has also come on record that Mangal Singh
was working in the transport firm for last 5 years. He further admits that there
was no record produced to show that he was getting payment of Rs.8,000/- per
month.
5. Thus, taking these facts into consideration, it is apparent that on the
date of the accident, the minimum wages even for a skilled labourer were to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 4/21/2023
6:42:21 PM
tune of Rs.4,825/- per month or Rs.57,900/- per annum. The Claims Tribunal
has considered 65% permanent disability whereas looking to the occupation of
the claimant and taking into consideration the law laid down by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another reported in
(2011) 1 SCC 343, the occupational disability is to be considered and once it
has established by leading cogent evidence that the claimant was a truck driver
and due to loss of left leg below knee, he will not be able to ride a truck, cent
percent disability is to be construed, which is also the ratio in the judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sri Chanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda Vs.
Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited decided on
10 th December, 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 9306 of 2019 arising out of [SLP
(Civil) No. 31909 of 2017].
6. Thus, taking these facts into consideration, the loss of earning of the
claimant will be Rs.57,900/- per annum. Since he was 57 years of age, the
multiplier of 9 will be applicable taking total compensation for loss of earning to
Rs.5,21,100/-. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the
head of pain and suffering, which is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Thus, there will
be addition of Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. Besides this,
the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- under the head of treatment,
which shall remain intact. The Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount
under the head of future treatment and fixation of artificial limb etc for which
another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded. Thus, the claimant will be entitled to a
total sum of Rs.6,91,100/- in place of Rs.2,19,000/- awarded by learned Claims
Tribunal. Thus, there will be addition to the tune of Rs.4,72,100/- (Rupees Four
Lakh Seventy Two Thousand One Hundred Only), which will be admissible to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 4/21/2023
6:42:21 PM
the claimant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till the date of the actual payment. The other terms and conditions
of the award like fixing the liability etc shall remain intact.
7. Out of Rs.4,72,100/-, a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- shall remain invested in
a Monthly Income Scheme of the Indian Post Office or a Nationalized Bank for
a period of five years so that the claimant may earn his monthly remuneration
for meeting out of his livelihood expenses and remaining amount will be spent
by him on taking treatment including fixation of artificial limb etc.
8. In above terms, this appeal is disposed of.
9. Let record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
@shish
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 4/21/2023
6:42:21 PM
