Alok Kumar Gupta vs Ramkumar Mina
2024 Latest Caselaw 12931 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Alok Kumar Gupta vs Ramkumar Mina on 8 May, 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 8 th OF MAY, 2024
                    MISC. APPEAL No. 442 of 2008

BETWEEN:-
ALOK KUMAR GUPTA S/O SHRI LALITA PRASAD GUPTA
, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: L.I.C.AGENT,
R/O NEAR LAXMI NARAIN TEMPLE KOLARAS, DISTT.
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI NAVAL KISHORE GUPTA - ADVOCATE )

AND
1.    RAMKUMAR MINA S/O BHUDDA RAM MINA,
      AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER,
      R/O GRAM VILAVOND, TEH. BADI THANA BADI,
      DISTT. DHOLPUR, (RAJASTHAN)

2.    PAWAN KUMAR SINGHAL S/O SHAMBHOODAYL
      S I N G H A L OCCUPATION: R/O AGRAWAL
      ROADWAYS JIWAJIGANJ, MORENA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    DIVISIONAL  MANAGER,     THE    ORIENTAL
      INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE
      JAYENDERGANJ, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO. 3 BY SHRI S.N.GAJENDRAGADKAR - ADVOCATE )

      T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
                                 ORDER

Assailing the award dated 13/12/2007 passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri in Claim Case No.30/2007, on the point of inadequacy of the compensation, the appellant/claimant has preferred this

appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 35,000/- to the appellant/claimant for the injuries sustained by him in road accident dated 31/12/2005.

2. The appellant, had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in road accident dated 31/12/2005. The reply to the claim petition was filed and after recording the evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- in total; and respondents were fastened with the liability of payment of compensation amount with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition jointly and severally.

3. As the incident occurred, negligence of driver of driving the offending vehicle, the issue of liability jointly and severally to pay compensation have been decided recording the findings in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal and none of those findings have been assailed at the instance of the respondents i.e. owner, driver by filing the cross-appeal or the cross-objection, it is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail to burden the judgment on the said issues. It is only the inadequacy of the compensation which has been assailed, however the arguments in detail have been considered in succeeding paragraphs.

4. As observed supra, it is an injury case. On 31/12/2005 at about 11 pm in the night when appellant was coming on his motorcycle from Jagatpur, Kolaras to Kolaras and as soon as reached to Bus Stand, it is alleged that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending truck, truck hit the motorcycle of appellant from back side, due to which he sustained grievous hurts in his head and leg, which gave rise to filing of claim case. Parties adduced evidence. The Claims Tribunal after recording evidence and hearing the parties, by impugned

award partly allowed the claim petition filed by claimants and as stated supra, awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition.

5. Shri Gupta, learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the injuries sustained by the appellant were grievous in nature. The appellant sustained fracture in his right leg and he remained hospitalized till 8/1/2006. He sustained permanent disability and after the accident not able to do the work which he used to prior to accident for his livelihood. The Tribunal erred in disbelieving the disability caused to appellant whereas, as per disability certificate he sustained permanent disability to the extent of 40%. The Tribunal has only awarded Rs 35,000/- towards hospital bill, medical expenses, Special diet, pain and suffering and travelling expenses. No amount under the head loss of earning has been awarded. The amount awarded under the head travelling expenses is on the lower side. No amount has been awarded under the head grievous hurt; whereas, the appellant suffered fracture and further no amount has been awarded under the head future loss of income, thus the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate, without looking to the nature of grievous injuries sustained, hospitalization, medical bills. In view of the foregoing submissions, the enhancement of the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal has been prayed for.

6. On the other hand Shri Gajendragadkar, learned counsel representing the respondent /Insurance Company contends in support of the findings of the Claims Tribunal and submitted that the compensation as awarded by the impugned award appears to be just and reasonable, however, interference by this Court for enhancement of the compensation is not warranted. None

appeared on behalf of the other respondents.

7. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the pleadings and the evidence so adduced, in the opinion of this Court, considering the nature of injuries especially fracture sustained, treatment papers and its period, the mental pain and suffering and also the other heads, the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be enhanced by Rs. 30,000/- in lump sum thereby making the total compensation Rs.65,000/- which shall be paid within two months from today.

8. In view of the forgoing discussions, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. The appellant is held entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs. 30,000/- in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry any interest as per the impugned award. The other conditions as imposed by claims Tribunal shall remain intact.

With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award the appeal stands allowed in part.

                                                                    (ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
                                                                               JUDGE
     JPS/-    Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
              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=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c76 33f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, postalCode=474001,

SOLANKI st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A2D 8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2024.05.09 11:32:03 +05'30'