Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil vs Dinesh on 14 March, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 14th OF MARCH, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 292 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
ANIL S/O MOOLCHANDRA RAGHUWANSHI, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CLEANER
SHRIRAM NAGAR, LASUDIYA MORI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIJAY SINGH CHOUHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 DINESH S/O GIRIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
. OCCUPATION: TRANSPORT 13, CHHATRAPATI
NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
DINESH S/O CHANDARSINGH OCCUPATION:
2. TRANSPORT GRAM MALYAKHEDI TEHSIL AND
DIST SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
3. THR PRABHANDAK 221 SAKET NAGAR NEW
INDIA HOUSE INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
MISC. APPEAL No. 311 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SUNIL S/O MOOLCHANDRA RAGHUWANSHI, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CLEANER
SHRIRAM NAGAR, LASUDIYA MORI (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 3/15/2023
2:47:51 PM
-2-
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIJAY SINGH CHOUHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
DINESH S/O GIRIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: TRANSPORT 13, CHHATRAPATI
NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
DINESH S/O CHANDERSINGH OCCUPATION:
2. TRANSPORT GRAM MAALYAKHEDI THESIL AND
DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH
3. MANAGER 221 SAKET NAGAR NEW INDIA
HOUSE INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR
THE RESPONDENT NO.3)
HEARD ON : 27.02.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 14.03.2023
These second appeals coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
Since, both the appeals arising out of a common award dated
30.10.2021 passed by 4th MACT Indore in Claim Case No.2/2018 (Anil
Vs. Dinesh) and Claim Case No.721/2018 (Sunil Vs. Dinesh) respectively,
therefore, same are being decided by this common order.
The facts of the case in short are as under:-
1. As per admitted facts of the case both the claimants/appellants are
real brothers. The non applicant Dinesh S/o Giriraj was the owner of truck
bearing registration No.MP-09-HF-0295 and Dinesh S/o Chandar Singh
was the driver of the said truck. At the time of accident, the offending truck
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 3/15/2023
2:47:51 PM
was insured with the New India Insurance Company/respondent No.3.
2. On 20.09.2017, both the claimants were going from Sajapur to
Indore from Tata Ace vehicle. Appellant Sunil was driving the Tata Ace
vehicle and when they reached near A.B. Road village Tarana, the non-
applicant no.2 was driving the aforesaid truck rashly and negligently and
dashed the Tata Ace vehicle. Appellant Anil sustained injuries on his head,
crushed injury of right leg and compound fracture of tibia, fibula, malleus
& femur bone. Appellant Sunil also received injury and fracture on
various parts of the body. Both were admitted in District Hospital Sajapur,
thereafter, they were referred to the Gaurav Hospital where they remained
in treatement from 20.9.2017 to 26.09.2017. According to the Anil, he was
working as a Cleaner in the said vehicle with his brother and used to earn
Rs.8000/- per month. At the time of accident, he was 28 years of age and
after this accident he suffered permanent disablement. Hence, he is entitled
for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Other appellant Sunil has also filed a
claim case contending that he was engaged in the transport business and
used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. He was 25 years of age and after this
accident he suffered permanent disablement, hence, he is also entitled to
get compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
2. The learned Tribunal have decided both the claim cases (Claim Case
No.2/2018 (Anil Vs. Dinesh) and Claim Case No.721/2018 (Sunil Vs.
Dinesh) by passing a common impugned award. Appellant Anil has been
awarded the compensation of Rs.4,55,695/- (Four Lakh Fifty-Five
Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-Five) and appellant Sunil has been awarded
the compensation of Rs.2,44,644/- (Two Lakh Forty-Four Thousand Six
Hundred Forty-Four. Hence, these appeals are before this Court seeking
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 3/15/2023
2:47:51 PM
enhancement of the compensation .
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that apart from other
heads, the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken into the consideration the
income of the appellants on lower side. Anil was the cleaner of the said
vehicle, therefore, he was entitled for minimum wages fixed by the
Collector for unskilled labour, whereas, appellant Sunil was the Driver of
the said vehicle, therefore, he was entitled to get compensation by taking
minimum wages fixed for skilled labour. The M.P. State Legal Services
Authority has issued a National Income Chart to be followed by the
Tribunal for awarding the compensation. According to which w.e.f.
01.10.2006 to 31.3.2007 the minimum wages for unskilled labour was
Rs.6,950/- per month and for skilled labour Rs.9,185/- per month that
takes care of Saturdays & Sundays but the Tribunal has wrongly taken into
consideration the minimum wages for only 25 days. The entire medical
treatment bills have not been taken into consideration unless an amount
has been awarded under the head of medical expenses.
PERIOD UNSKILLED SEMI SKILLED SKILLED
Per Month Per Day Per Month Per Day Per Month Per Day
01.04.2017 7125 274.07 7982 307 9360 360
to
31.09.2017
4. Shri Gupta appeared on behalf of the respondent/New India
Insurance Company contended that the amount of compensation awarded
by the learned Tribunal is not liable to be interfered as there is no scope of
further enhancement. The medical bills which were reflecting the name of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 3/15/2023
2:47:51 PM
patient & dates have been taken in to consideration by the learned MACT.
The income has been properly taken into consideration. Hence, the
appeals are liable to be dismissed.
Heard, appreciation and conclusion.
5. So far the case of appellant Anil is concerned, at the time of
accident he was 28 years of age. He suffered the Fractures Shaft femur,
compound fracture tibia-fibula, external fixtures and interlocking done and
remained in the hospital from 20.09.2017 to 26.09.2017, thereafter, from
24.01.2018 to 30.01.2018, 20.05.2018 to 25.05.2018 and suffered 52% of
permanent disablement as per the opinion of doctor. But MACT has held
that he suffered only 20% permanent disablement. His income was taken
into consideration @ Rs.5,500 per month and multiplier of 17 was applied
but no income has been added under the future prospects. So far the
medical bills are concerned, appellant Anil produced the bills to the tune of
Rs.2,50,000/- but only Rs.64,035/- has been awarded to him. But looking
to the fractures, period of treatment and operations, my considered opinion
is that Rs.64,035/- is on a lower side. The appellant Anil remained in the
hospital, the medicines bills were paid by the relatives and if certain bills
are not reflecting the name and date the same are not liable to be discarded.
Even if he is not entitled for Rs.2,50,000/- atleast Rs.1,40,000/- is liable to
be taken into consideration for the medical bills. The lump-sum
Rs.50,000/- has been awarded under the various heads like transport, pain,
suffering, attendant and special diet. No amount of compensation has been
awarded for operation in future for removal of implant. As per the
guidelines of M.P. State Legal Services Authority, the minimum wages was
Rs.7125/- per month and if it is taken for 25 days, it was Rs.274.07 per day
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 3/15/2023
2:47:51 PM
and if he was getting the work for 25 days it will come around 6500 per
month and on which Rs.2600 under the head of future prospect at the rate
of 40% is liable to be added. Therefore, taken into consideration the facts
in totality the compensation payable to the appellant Anil is liable to be
enhanced by Rs.1,60,585/-. The details are as under :-
Permanent disablement Rs.6500+2600 (40% Future prospects) = 9100 x
12 x 17 (multiplier) x 20% (P.D.) = Rs.3,71,280/-
Medical Bills Rs.1,40,000/- (some bills are wrongly discarded,
looking to the 4 operations and the medical bill,
the medical expenses produce and exhibited of
Rs.2,50,000/- there is a major dispute regarding
the medical bills, hence for purposes we can take
1,40,000/- Medical expenses)
Special diet Rs.5000/-
Conveyance Rs.10,000/-
Attendant Rs.10,000/-
Pain & Suffering Rs.25,000/-
Loss of wages Rs.30,000/-
Future Medical for removal road Rs.25,000/-
Total Amount Rs.6,16,280/-
MACT Award 4,55,695/-
Enhance amount 1,60,585/- alongwith interest
6. So far the case of appellant Sunil is concerned, at the time of
accident he was 25 years of age. He suffered the fractures of tibia &
sagmental, Interlocking plate and block drafting Shortening of 1.5 cm. and
remained in the hospital from 20.09.2017 to 26.09.2017 and suffered 20%
of permanent disablement as per the opinion of doctor. But MACT has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 3/15/2023
2:47:51 PM
held that he suffered only 10% permanent disablement. His income was
taken into consideration Rs.5,500 per month and multiplier of 17 was
applied. So far the medical bills are concerned, appellant Sunil produced
the bills to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- but only Rs.28,564/- has been
awarded to him. But looking to the fractures, period of treatment and
operations, my considered opinion is that Rs.28,564/- is on a lower side.
The appellant Sunil remained in the hospital, the medicines bills were paid
by the relatives and if certain bills are not reflecting the name and date the
same are not liable to be discarded. Even if he is not entitled for
Rs.1,50,000/- atleast Rs.50,000/- is liable to be taken into consideration for
the medical bills. The lump-sum Rs.35,000/- has been awarded under the
various heads like transport, pain, suffering, attendant and special diet. As
per the guidelines of M.P. State Legal Services Authority, the minimum
wages was Rs.9,360/- per month and if it is taken for 25 days, it was
Rs.360 per day and if he was getting the work for 25 days it will come
around 7,000/- per month. Therefore, taken into consideration the facts in
totality the compensation payable to the appellant Sunil is liable to be
enhanced by Rs.1,14,036/-. The details are as under :-
Permanent disablement Rs.7000+2800 = 9800 x 12 x 18 (multiplier) x
10% = Rs.2,11,680/-
Medical Bills Appellant has filed medical bill to the tune of
Rs.1,50,000/- but the bills are wrongly rejected by
the tribunal, therefore looking to the
hospitalization and the nature of injury we can
consider medical bill upto Rs.50,000/-.
Special diet Rs.5,000/-
Conveyance Rs.10,000/-
Attendant Rs.10,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 3/15/2023
2:47:51 PM
Pain & Suffering Rs.20,000/-
Loss of wages Rs.30,000/- (6 months)
Future Medical for removal rod Rs.20,000/-
Total Amount Rs.3,56,680/-
MACT Award Rs.2,42,644/-
Enhance amount 1,14,036/- alongwith interest
7. Accordingly, common award dated 30.10.2021 passed by 4 th MACT
Indore in Claim Case No.2/2018 (Anil Vs. Dinesh) and Claim Case
No.721/2018 (Sunil Vs. Dinesh) respectively is hereby modified as
discussed above and both appeals are hereby finally disposed of .
Certified copy as per rules.
Copy of this order is to be placed in M.A.No.311/2022.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
vs
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 3/15/2023
2:47:51 PM
