Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju vs Abdul Fareed on 21 February, 2024
Author: Amar Nath Kesharwani
Bench: Amar Nath Kesharwani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
ON THE 21ST OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No.2208 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
RAJU S/O GANA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCCUPATION LABOUR, R/O VILLAGE JAMUNIYA,
TEHSIL KHAKNAR, DISTRICT BURHANPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI NARESH KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ABDUL FAREED S/O ABDUL AZIZ, AGED ABOUT
42 YEARS, OCCUPATION DRIVER, R/O GRAM
CHHOTA BORGAON, P.S. PADAMNAGAR, DISTRICT
KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MOHAMMAD SAJID KHAN S/O GULAB KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O GRAM BORGAON
KHURD, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, O/O FIRST
FLOOR Z-PLAZA, PADAVA ROAD, KHANDWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 & 2, THOUGH SERVED)
(SHRI ALOK HOONKA - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 23-02-2024
18:32:36
2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has amended
the appeal regarding valuation of Court fees and no additional Court
fees is required to be paid.
Case is listed today for consideration of I.A.No.5203/2020, which
is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of
delay in filing the appeal.
As per Office report, the appeal is filed within time, therefore, no
order is required to be passed on I.A.No.5203/2020.
Accordingly, I.A.No.5203/2020 is disposed of.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
With the consent of the parties, heard final arguments.
The appellant/claimant has filed this Appeal under Section 173(1)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the compensation
amount being aggrieved with the award dated 04/03/2020 passed by
IIIrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Burhanpur, District
Burhanpur (M.P.) in MACC No.64/2019, by which the learned Claims
Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,94,200/- (Five lakhs ninety four
thousand two hundred) with 8% interest to the appellant/claimant by
way of compensation for the injuries, which he has sustained in a motor
vehicle accident.
2. According to claimant i.e. appellant herein, the compensation
awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on lower side and hence,
need to be enhanced.
3. Since, this appeal is for the enhancement in the compensation
amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal, hence the question that arises
for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation
awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal on facts and evidence adduced,
is made out and if so to what extent?
4. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how
the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending
vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason
that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of appellant/claimant
by the Tribunal. Secondly, the findings though recorded in claimant's
favour are not under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents
such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of filing an
appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, there is no
justification to burden this order by detailing facts on all these issues.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in a motor accident
which took place on 01/03/2018 the appellant sustained grievous
injuries including multiple fractures of femur bone in right legs, fracture
of humerus bone and radius & ulna bone in right hand and learned
Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.5,94,200/- (Five lakhs ninety
four thousand two hundred) breakup of which is as under :
Rs.4,08,000/- Towards permanent disability
Rs.1,38,200/- Towards medical expenses
Rs.32,000/- Towards pain and suffering and special diet
Rs.16,000/- Towards expenses incurred on attendant
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned
tribunal has committed error in not properly understanding and relying
upon the evidence of Dr. Sachin Dagdu Ahire (AW-2) and permanent
disability certificate (Ex.P-124), which shows that there is 55%
permanent disability caused to the appellant/claimant in the alleged
incident, but learned tribunal has assessed only 40% permanent
disability, which should be at least 50%. Second submission of learned
counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has assessed income of the
appellant to Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) per month, however, the incident
is of the year 2018 and as per Minimum Wages Act the income of the
appellant/claimant should have been assessed to Rs.7,125/- (Seven
thousand one hundred twenty five) per month. Learned counsel further
submitted that the learned Tribunal has not assessed the future prospect
of the appellant, while keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% should be added
towards future prospects. It is also submitted that due to the injuries
sustained by appellant in the alleged incident, he remained hospitalized
for a period of 32 days and learned tribunal has only awarded a sum of
Rs.32,000/- (Thirty two thousand) under the head of pain & suffering
and special diet, which should be enhanced. On the strength of aforesaid
submissions, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and amount of
compensation be enhanced substantially.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has opposed
the prayer and submitted that the learned tribunal has passed the
impugned award after appreciating all the evidence available on record,
which requires no interference. It is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and gone through the impugned award.
9. So far as permanent disability is concerned, looking to the nature
of injury, medical documents available on record and the statement of
Dr. Sachin Dagdu Ahire (AW-2), I am of the considered opinion that
learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the permanent disability as 40% of
the whole body.
10. From perusal of record it is evident that the accident is of the year
2018 and learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the
appellant/claimant as Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand), while as per Minimum
Wages Act the income of an unskilled labour on the date of incident was
Rs.7,125/- (Seven thousand one hundred twenty five) per month. It also
appears from the impugned award that keeping in view the law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra),
learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the appellant,
which should be considered. So, in the light of judgment passed in the
case of Pranay Sethi (supra) 40% is to be added towards future
prospects. It is undisputed that at the time of alleged incident the age of
the appellant was 30 years, therefore, keeping in view the law laid down
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, 2009 (6)
SCC 121 the multiplier of 17 has rightly been applied by the learned
Tribunal.
11. It also appears from the impugned award that the learned Tribunal
has not awarded any amount under the head of grievous injuries, which
should be awarded. So, looking to the nature of injury sustained by the
appellant in the alleged incident, a sum of Rs.50,000/- will be
appropriate to be awarded under the head of grievous injuries. On other
heads, amount awarded by the learned Tribunal appears to be just and
proper, which requires no interference.
12. Thus, considering the monthly income of the injured @ Rs.7,125/-
(Seven thousand one hundred twenty five) per month and as discussed
above 40% of the assessed income is to be added towards future
prospect, which comes to Rs.9,975/- (Nine thousand nine hundred
seventy five). Thus, the yearly income of the appellant/claimant will be
Rs.1,19,700/- (One lakh nineteen thousand seven hundred). As
discussed above, permanent disability of appellant/claimant is assessed
@ 40%. Thus, the amount towards future loss of income after applying
multiplier of 17 comes to Rs.8,13,960/- (Eight lakhs thirteen thousand
nine hundred sixty).
13. In view of above discussion, appellant/claimant shall be entitled
for the following amount of compensation :-
Rs.8,13,960/- Towards permanent disability
Rs.50,000/- Towards grievous injury
Rs.1,38,200/- Towards medical expenses
Rs.32,000/- Towards pain and suffering and special diet
Rs.16,000/- Towards expenses incurred on attendant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rs.10,50,160/- Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thus, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for a total sum of
Rs.10,50,160/- (Ten lakhs fifty thousand one hundred sixty) instead of
Rs.5,94,200/- (Five lakhs ninety four thousand two hundred). Thus,
there shall be enhancement to the tune of Rs.4,55,960/- (Four lakhs fifty
five thousand nine hundred sixty), which shall fetch interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of actual
payment. The enhanced amount be paid within 60 days from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order. Other terms and condition of the
award shall remain intact.
15. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant has valued the
appeal as Rs.4,00,000/- (Four lakhs) and paid the Court fee as per
valuation, therefore, appellants are directed to pay the Court fee on
additional amount of Rs.55,960/- (Fifty five thousand nine hundred
sixty) also within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. If the Court fee is not paid within the
stipulated period, then this order will be restricted only up to the amount
of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four lakhs).
16. With the aforesaid, appeal stands disposed of.
17. Records of the claims Tribunal be sent back alongwith the copy of
this order for information and necessary compliance.
No order as to costs.
(AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE
as.
