Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil vs Ramsingh And 2 Ors. on 22 December, 2023
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDOR E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
MISC. APPEAL No.1521/2013
BETWEEN:-
SUNIL S/O SHRI KUNDAN PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 20 YEARS, 304 BABULAL NAGAR
PALDA NEMAWAR ROAD INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIJAY B SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANT).
AND
1. RAMSINGH AND 2 ORS. S/O
RADHAKRISHNA GRAM
BURANAKHEDI SANWER ROAD
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BALMUKUND S/O RAGHUNATH 122
VILL BURANKHEDI SANWER RD.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHRIRAM GEN. INS. CO. LTD. 301
ROYAL GOLD BUILDING Y.N. RD.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 12/22/2023
5:35:10 PM
2
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MAYANK UPADHYAY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT) .
........................................................................................................
Reserved on : 18.12.2023
Pronounced on : 22.12.2023.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This miscellaneous appeal having been heard and reserved for
orders, coming on for pronouncement this day, Justice Achal Kumar
Paliwal pronounced the following:
ORDER
This appeal by the claimant under section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act is arising out of the award dated 22.11.2012 passed by
21the Member, MACT, Indore in Claim Case No.106/2011 seeking
enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant after referring to impugned
award submits that Tribunal has wrongly granted only 39,800/- for
medical expenses, whereas, as per medical bills and prescriptions etc
filed by the appellant Rs.1,02,316/- should have been awarded for
medical expenses. It is also urged that appellant has remained
hospitalized from 30.03.2011 to 05.04.2011. Medical Bills Ex.P/60,
61, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71 and 91 relates to the period of hospitalization.
Hence, appellant be granted Rs.1,02,316/- for medical expenses.
Learned counsel after referring to Para 27 of impugned award
submits that Tribunal has not awarded any amount for attendant or
loss of amenities, conveyance charges etc. It is established that
appellant remained hospitalized for six days. It is also urged that
learned Tribunal has wrongly determined the appellant's income as
Rs.3000/- per month. He has relied upon the judgment of D.
Sampath vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and
Another reported in 2011 ACJ 2466 to bolster his submission. It is
also urged that appropriate or just and proper compensation be
awarded to the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has
submitted that amount of bills Ex.P/60, 61, 65, 69, 70, 71 and 91
cannot be awarded to the appellant. Besides the amount awarded by
the Tribunal, Rs.12,210/-may be granted to the appellant for medical
expenses i.e. total Rs.52,010/- may be awarded for medical
expenses. It is also urged that Tribunal has rightly assessed the
monthly income of claimant and Tribunal has also awarded the
amount for conveyance, nourishing diet etc. It is also submitted that
Insurance Company has deposited Rs.40,000/- during Lok Adalat
sitting, therefore, amount, if any, is enhanced then above amount be
adjusted against the same.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
Medical Expenses:
5. So far as medical expenses are concerned, perusal of
impugned award passed by Tribunal reveal that Tribunal has
awarded Rs.39,800/- for medical expenses. Perusal of Ex.P/89
(discharge card) reveal that appellant has remained hospitalized from
30.03.2011 to 05.04.2011. Bills Ex.P/60, P/61, P/65, P/69 & P/70
relates to the period of appellant's hospitalization. Hence, appellant
is entitled to get above medical bills reimbursed. But Bill Ex.P/71
amounting to Rs.7,000/- relate to one day visit of doctor and Ex.P/67
of Rs.6,900/- does not contain signature etc., hence appellant is not
entitled to receive amount of bill Ex.P/67 and P/71.
6. In view of above, in this Court's opinion, appellant is entitled
to receive Rs.88,416/- (Rs.1,02,316 - Rs.13,900) as medical
expenses. Out of above, Tribunal has already awarded Rs.39,800,
therefore, appellant is entitled to receive additional amount of
Rs.48,616/- (Rs.88,416 - Rs.39,800) under the head of medical
expenses.
Income:
7. So far as income of appellant is concerned, in the instant case,
accident occurred on 30.03.2011 and as per notification issued under
Minimum Wages Act, minimum wages of an unskilled labour on the
date of accident was Rs.3,070/- per month. Hence, it cannot be said
that Tribunal has not properly assessed appellant's monthly income.
Therefore, no interference is required with respect to same.
Compensation unde r other heads:
8. Perusal of impugned award reveal that Tribunal has awarded
Rs.10,000/- for conveyance, nourishing diet, pain and suffering etc.
From record of case it is apparent that appellant had suffered fracture
in both legs and he has remained hospitalized for six days and
Tribunal has held that appellant suffered 15% permanent disability.
Hence, in view of above, in this Court's opinion, amount awarded by
the Tribunal under above heads is on the lower side. Hence, amount
of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head of conveyance, nourishing
diet, pain and suffering. Hence, appellant is additionally entitled to
Rs.40,000/- under above head.
9. Perusal of impugned award reveal that Tribunal has not
awarded any amount for loss of amenities in the instant case.
Appellant was aged 17 years at the time of accident and Tribunal has
assessed 15% permanent disability, hence in this Court's opinion
appellant is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of amenities etc.
10. In view of discussion in the foregoing paras, compensation is
recalculated as under:
Total compensation:
Permanent disability Rs.97,200/-
Medical expenses Rs.88,416/-
Loss of amenities Rs.2,00,000/-
Conveyance, nourishing diet, Rs.50,000/-
pain and suffering
Loss of income during treatment Rs.6,000/-
Total Rs.4,41,616/-
11. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the
instant case is Rs.4,41,616/- as against the award of the Tribunal of
Rs.1,53,000/-. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to an additional
sum of Rs.2,88,616/- over and above the amount which has been
awarded by the Tribunal.
12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount by a sum of Rs.2,88,616/-. The enhanced
amount shall bear interest at the same rate as awarded by the
Tribunal. The other findings recorded by the Tribunal shall remain
intact.
13. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
hk/
