Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Rathor vs Kamal Singh on 16 February, 2024
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
ON THE 16 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 391 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
MUKESH RATHOR S/O SHRI DEVISINGH RATHOR,
AGED 21 YEARS, R/O GRAM BARWAI PARGANA
AMBAH, DISTT. MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI R.P.GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KAMAL SINGH S/O BADRIPRASAD KADERA,
AGED 40 YEARS, R/O GRAM KATHODA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. INDRALAL @ INDRAPAL S/O CHATRAPAL, CASTE-
KUSHWAH, AGED 23 YEARS, R/O NIDHAN KA
PURA, TEH. JAURA, DISTT. MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, BRANCH MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHRINIVAS GAJENDRAGADKAR - ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.3)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No. 752/2011, which is an application under Section 5 of
Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. The appeal is barred by approximately five years three months.
3. Looking to the averments made in the application and the fact that
appeal filed under Motor Vehicle Act by claimant is a beneficial legislation, the
delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned; however, at the same time it is
held that appellant shall not be entitled to receive any interest for the delayed
period i.e. from 22/11/2005 to 14/2/2011.
4. Heard on main appeal.
5. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 22/11/2005 passed by learned 5th
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Morena in claim case
No.54/2004 seeking enhancement of compensation amount. By the impugned
award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.81,000/- with interest
@ 6% per annum for the injuries sustained by appellant/claimant, arising out of
the accident occurred on 8/11/2002.
6. Appellant had preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.11,35,500/-. The
appellant had sustained fracture in right leg and injuries head and both hand and
other parts of body.
7. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 81,000/-. The certificate
of permanent disablement to the extent of 40% (ExP-23) is available on record;
however, the Tribunal has assessed the permanent disablement tothe extent of
20% and awarded a compensation of Rs.51,000/- under the head permanent
disability. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for medical expenses and
Rs. 5,000/- towards mental and physical pain. Thus, awarded total
compensation of Rs. 51,000/- for the injuries sustained by appellant.
8. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the
accident occurred, negligence in driving the offending vehicle, and liability to
pay compensation etc., because the Tribunal has already recorded the findings
in favour of the appellant and none of those findings have been challenged at
the instance of the respondents, i.e., owner/driver/Insurance Company by filing
cross appeal or cross objection. In that view of the matter it is not necessary to
burden the judgment by detailing the facts on those issues.
9. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injuries
sustained by the appellant were grievous in nature. It is also submitted that on
account of grievous injuries the injured sustained permanent disablement to the
extent of 40%. He could not have performed any work during the treatment,
and earn any means. It is further submitted that appellant was a skilled labour
of diamond polishing and thereaby used to earn Rs. 8 to 10 thousands per
month and therefore, Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income of
injured at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Counsel further submits that the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate, without looking
to the permanent disablement or the injuries sustained, hospitalization, medical
bills and the loss of earning. In view of the said submissions the inadequacy
of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been assailed, because it is
meager and deserves enhancement.
10. On the other hand Shri Gadkar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/ Insurance Company has contended in support of the findings of
the claims Tribunal and argued that the compensation as awarded by the
impugned award is just and proper, which do not warrant any interference by
this Court.
11. After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties
and on going through the pleadings, evidence adduced, period of
hospitalization, medical bills, it appears that learned Claims Tribunal erred in
assessing the income of injured at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and same is hereby
assessed at Rs. 30,000/- per annum in absence of any documentary proof
regarding income. In the opinion of this Court, looking to the findings of Claims
Tribunal, it did not err in assessing the permanent disablement of the appellant
to the extent of 20% and also the amount awarded under other head also
appears to be just and proper. Thus, assessing his annual income to be Rs.
30,000/- and applying the multiplier of 17 as per his age, total amount under the
head permanent disablement comes to Rs. 102,000/- (30,000 x 20/100 = 6,000
x 17 = 1,02,000/-). In this amount, the amount awarded under the other head is
required to be added and after adding the same, the total compensation to
which appellant is entitled for comes to Rs. 1,02,000 30,000 = 1,32,000/-. The
claims Tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs. 81,000/-, therefore,
the appellant shall be entitled to receive an enhanced compensatio of Rs.
1,32,000 - 81,000 = 51,000/-.
12. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation as
allowed by the Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs.51,000/- in addition to the
compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall
carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization.
However, the appellant shall not be entitled to receive interest for the delayed
period of filing the appeal i.e. from 22/11/2005 to 14/2/2011. In the facts and
circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.
13. Rest of the conditions as imposed by Claims Tribunal shall remain
intact.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JUDGE
JPS/-
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
JAI PRAKASH
BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c
7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a,
SOLANKI
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A2
D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522,
cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
Date: 2024.02.22 11:18:20 +05'30'
