Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Thorat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
th
ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 2960 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAMESH THORAT S/O LATE SHRI NAMDEVJI
THORAT, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE R/O 8/4 LAXMAN
PRASAD BHARGAV NAGAR DISTT. UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. REKHA SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
SANCHALAK KRISHI VIBHAG BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. UP SANCHALAK, KISAN KALYAN TATHA
KRISHI VIKAS VIBHAG. DISTRICT
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAJENDRA KUMAR S/O VIJAYSINGH
CHOUDHARY 8/4 KOTHI LINE
VISHVDHIYALAY MARG, GALI NO. NO. 2
KOTHI KE PICHE DISTRICT UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI KOUSTUBH PATHAK, GOVT. ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BE-
HALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL).
..................................................................................................
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time:
10/19/2023 6:37:42 PM
1] This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated
04.08.2022, passed by III Additional Member, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Ujjain (M.P.) in MACC No.568/2019 whereby, on
an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for
compensation, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.1,25,895/- on account of the injury suffered by the appellant in an
accident, which took place on 02.7.2018. Being aggrieved of the
inadequacy of the same, the present appeal has been filed.
2] In brief, the facts of the case are that the appellant met with an
accident on 02.7.2018, at around 1:30 p.m., when he was walking
towards Kothi Road, Ujjain, at that time, a Govt. vehicle-Jeep
bearing registration No.02-4331 driven rashly and negligently by the
respondent No.3, dashed against him; as a result of which, he
suffered fracture on his left leg, as his tibia bone was fractured. To
claim the compensation in respect of the aforesaid injuries suffered by
the appellant, a claim case was filed before the Claims Tribunal, who,
after recording the evidence, has passed the aforesaid Award to the tune
of Rs.1,25,895/-. Being aggrieved of the inadequacy of the same, the
present appeal has been filed.
3] Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the income of the
appellant has been considered on lower side and a meagre amount has
been awarded by the Claims tribunal. It is further submitted that 10%
disability certificate have been issued by Dr. Ravindra Singh Saluja
(p.w.2), however, the Claims Tribunal has not considered the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time:
10/19/2023 6:37:42 PM
disability. Thus, it is submitted that the award may be enhanced
appropriately.
4] Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed
the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out.
5] Heard. Having considered rival submissions and on perusal of the
record, this Court finds that Dr. Ravindra Singh Saluja (p.w.2) has
opined that the injured has suffered a comminuted compound fracture
of tibia. He has also explained that comminuted fracture occurs when
there are many fragments of the bone. The appellant was also
hospitalized for a period of eleven days i.e. from 04.7.2018 to
09.7.2018, and a plate was also inserted in his left leg and, thus, he was
given a 10% disability certificate to the injured/appellant. The Claims
Tribunal has observed that since the appellant is able to walk, his
disability cannot be considered.
6] On due consideration and on perusal of the documents filed on
record, it is found that the appellant has spent around Rs.1,21,860 in his
treatment; whereas, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.95,895/- only,
and his loss of income is only considered for two months, and has
awarded Rs.10,000/-. Whereas, according to the appellant, he was not
able to move out of the home for a period of around seven months and
considering the fact that he is an Advocate, it can be presumed that he
suffered a loss of income for a period of seven months, which would be
Rs.35,000/-. So far as the compensation towards attendant to the tune
of Rs.5,000/- is concerned, the amount is required to be enhanced to
Rs.10,000/-.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time:
10/19/2023 6:37:42 PM
In view of the same, the assessment can be made in the
following manner, vis-a-vis the calculation made by the Claims
Tribunal:- Special diet, attendant and conveyance
The assessment made by the Claims Tribunal reads as under:-
Medical expenses 95,895/-
Loss of income during treatment 10,000/-
(5000 x 2 = 10,000/-)
Physical pain 5,000/-
Mental pain 5,000/-
Special diet 5,000/-
Attendant and conveyance 5,000/-
Total 1,25,895/-
The assessment made by this Court reads as follows:-
Medical expenses 1,21.860/-
Loss of income during treatment 35,000/-
( 5000 x 7= 35,000)
Physical pain 5,000/-
Mental pain 5,000/-
Special diet 5,000/-
Attendant and conveyance 10,000/-
Total 1,81,860/-
Thus, the amount further enhanced comes to Rs.55,965/-
(Rs. 1,81,860/- (-) Rs.1,25,895 = Rs. 55,965-/)
8] In view of the above, the appeal stands partly allowed, and the
appellant shall be entitled to receive an additional enhanced amount of
Rs.55,965/-(Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Five
only) towards the compensation along with the interest as awarded by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time:
10/19/2023 6:37:42 PM
the Tribunal. The rest of the Award passed by the Tribunal shall remain
as it is.
11] With the above mentioned observations, the appeal stands
partly allowed and disposed of.
(SUBHODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
moni
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time:
10/19/2023 6:37:42 PM
