Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Shakeel @ Shakeel Sheikh vs Vaibhav on 2 February, 2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 2nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 2872 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MOHAMMAD SHAKEEL @ SHAKEEL SHEIKH S/O
SHRI MOHAMMAD NASIM SHEIKH, AGED ABOUT 43
YEARS, TEKRI MOHALLA, KHARGONE, AT
PRESENT INFRONT OF BHAIYAAJI BUNGLOW
PATHANWADI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ROMIL MALPANI - ADVOCATE)
AND
VAIBHAV S/O SHRI ASHOK RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT
1. 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER PURAN SETH
KI CHAL, KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
KALABAI TOMAR W/O ASHOK TOMAR
OCCUPATION: VEHICLE OWNER KHANDWA
2.
ROAD PURAN SETH KI CHAL KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. THR.
3. MANAGER BRANCH KHARGONE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SARANJIT SINGH CHAWLA - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.3/INSURANCE COMPANY)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 07/02/2024
10:42:14 AM
-2-
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the
appeal is heard finally at motion stage.
The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicle Act seeking enhancement of the compensation amount
awarded by learned Second Add. Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Khargone against the award dated 13.11.2021 in Claim Case
No.107/2018 whereby Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,12,000/- to the
appellant.
02. The claim case before the Claims Tribunal was that on 25.01.2017,
appellant/Mohammad Shakeel @ Shakeel Sheikh was traveling in bus
bearing registration No.MP-12-P-0318. The respondent no.1/driver of the
offending vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and
caused the accident, due to which, the appellant sustained injury. The case
was registered at Police Station Bhagwanpura, District Khargone agaisnt
the respondent no.1. The claimant was medically examined and treated.
After first-aid, the appellant was treated in District Hospital, Khargone as
indoor patient from 25.01.2017 to 28.01.2017 and after that he also got the
treatment from Dhiraj Hospital and he got 20% disability.
03. The Claims Tribunal after reply of the respondents and recording of
the evidence awarded Rs.2,11,910/- with the simple interest of 6%.
04. Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the income of the deceased was ascertain on the lower side as at the
time of incident the minimum wages to industrial unskilled labour was
Rs.6,500/- and the Claims Tribunal has assessed his income as Rs.4,500/-
per month. If it would have been assessed on the basis of minimum wages
payable to labourer it would have been assessed on the higher side and the
Claims Tribunal has also assessed permanent disability as 20% i.e. on the
lower side and requested that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- be enhanced that
would be just and proper compensation.
05. Shri Saranjeet Singh Chawla, learned counsel for the
respondent/Insurance Company has stated that the income assessed by the
Claims Tribunal is proper and Claims Tribunal has awarded 25% in the
future prospect is as per law, no interference is called for.
06. The parties have not disputed the accident, the involvement of
vehicle, regarding the ownership of the vehicle and the vehicle was being
driven by the respondent no.1. Only the amount is disputed and that also
in the head of permanent disability. So, the finding of the Claims Tribunal
under these heads is affirmed.
I have gone through the record and the award passed by the
Tribunal.
07. The Claims Tribunal in paragraphs No.14 to 21 has discussed
regarding the disability of the appellant and has assessed that on
20.01.2017, the claimant consulted at Dhiraj Hospital, Vadodara and MRI
was conducted and it was found that the backbone of the deceased got
fractured and he was also consulted the Bombay Hospital. Thereafter, he
also got examined by Dr. Chetan Pathote (AW-2) and got treatment from
him. Dr. Chetan Pathote (AW-2) has also supported the fact that he
examined the claimant on 04.09.2019 and he found the fracture in L-1
bone and due to that fracture it was not possible for the claimant to bow
down and turn and on that basis he has assessed 20% permanent disability
and he has proved the disability certificate (Exhibit-A/16) and that fact has
not been challenged by the Insurance Company. Thus, the Claims Tribunal
after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar
vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 (1) SCC 475 (SC) considered the
disability and applying the multiplier of 13 (as age of the claimant was
between 46-50).
08. The Claims Tribunal in paragraph 13 of the award has assessed the
income of the claimant Rs.4,500/- and 25% amount have been added under
the head of future prospect and on that basis annual loss have been
assessed as Rs.13,500/-.
09. Looking to the fact that as per the notification provided by the
Insurance Company, the minimum wages to industrial labourer in the year
2015-2016 was Rs.6,500/- per month. The minimum income of the
claimant considering the fact that he was a daily wager labourer and was
not attached to any institutional employment, hence, being a casual
labourer sometimes he would have not got the work and on that basis on
the guess work the monthly income of the appellant is assessed as
Rs.5,500/- and 25% of the above income is added in the future prospect
and rest of the compensation on the other head is maintained as awarded
by tribunal.
The assessment made by the Claims Tribunal is as under :-
Income of injured = Rs.4000/-per month/Rs.54000/- PA
Add future prospects 25 % + Rs.13,500/-
Net Annual Income = Rs.67,500/-
Loss of income due to PD 20% (13,500 x 13) Rs.1,75,500/-
Treatment expenses + Rs.1,910/-
Special diet and misc exp. + Rs.5000/-
Conveyance expenses + Rs.5000/-
Loss of Income during treatment + Rs.4500/-
Pain and suffering + Rs.10,000/-
Loss of amnesties in life + Rs.5000/-
Loss of life expectancy + Rs.5000/-
TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED Rs.2,11,910 (rounded off :
Rs.2,12,000
The assessment made by this Court is as under :
Income of injured = Rs.5500/-per month/Rs.66000/- PA
Add future prospects 25 % + Rs.16,500/-
Net Annual Income = Rs.82,500/-
Loss of income due to PD 20% (16,500 x 13) Rs.2,14,500/-
Treatment expenses + Rs.1,910/-
Special diet and misc exp. + Rs.5000/-
Conveyance expenses + Rs.5000/-
Loss of Income during treatment + Rs.6000/-
Pain and suffering + Rs.10,000/-
Loss of amnesties in life + Rs.5000/-
Loss of life expectancy + Rs.5000/-
TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED Rs.2,52,410/-
Difference of Amount : Rs.2,52,410 - Rs.2,12,000/- = Rs.40,410/-
(rounded off Rs.40,500/-).
Amount to be enhanced is Rs.40,500/-.
10. In view of above, the appeal is allowed and the appellant shall be
entitled to receive an additional enhanced amount of Rs.40,500/-.
11. The insurance company/respondent no.3 shall pay the enhanced
amount and on the enhanced amount the insurance company shall also pay
simple interest at the rate of 7% from 03.07.2018 till the date of payment.
12. The enhanced amount shall be paid to the appellant by the tribunal
in cash.
13. The insurance company/respondent no.3 shall bear the cost of this
appeal also.
14. Record be sent back to the learned MACT alongwith the copy of this
order.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
vs
