Madhya Pradesh High Court
Viru vs Chandumal on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23383
1 MA-4878-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 25th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 4878 of 2023
VIRU
Versus
CHANDUMAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Himanshu Paliwal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and
2.
Shri Pankaj Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act being aggrieved by the award dated 6.5.2023 passed in claim
Case No.1847/2020 challenging quantum of compensation. There is no
dispute regarding the injury due to the accident by the insured vehicle and
the liability of the Insurance Company.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 20.12.2019 at around 5.30
PM appellant Veeru was returning after doing labour work from village
Kalaria to Prajapat Nagar to his home. When he reached near Navda Panth
Bridge, truck-407 having registration No.MP-09-GE-6968 came, which was
being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner. He rammed into the
divider in the middle of the bridge because of which its body broke and fell
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23383
2 MA-4878-2023
down on the appellant. He sustained grievous injuries. He was rushed by 108
Ambulance to District Hospital from where he was referred to M.Y.Hospital,
where he remained under treatment from 20.12.2019 to 25.1.2020. The
accident resulted in an amputation of his left hand from shoulder. He also
suffered grievous injuries in his left eye, nose and fracture in other parts of
the body.
2.1 The appellant filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries in the aforesaid
accident. The claims Tribunal after considering the evidence awarded a total
sum of Rs.13,49,280/-, out of which Rs.12,51,180/- was for permanent
disability.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the statement
of Dr. Ashish Mehrotra (AW-3) appellant has suffered 90% permanent
disability. He also referred to Ex.P/10, which is permanent disability
certificate issued by District Medical Board, Indore in which it has been
provided that the appellant has suffered 90% permanent disability in left
upper limb. He submits that the expert witness i.e. AW-3 has clearly stated in
para 2 of his examination-in-chief that Medical Board has found 90%
permanent disability, which will remain for life. He submits that even in
cross-examination the witness remained firm on his statement. As such, the
claims Tribunal has erred in treating the said permanent disability of the
appellant at 50%. Particularly, when the claims Tribunal itself has concluded
in para 17 of the award that the appellant was an unskilled Labour. He
submits that Labour cannot be continued after amputation of his left hand
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23383
3 MA-4878-2023
from shoulder.
3.1 Learned counsel further submits that at the time of accident the
appellant was 19 years unmarried person. Nothing has been awarded for loss
of amenities of live and marriage prospects. Thus, he prays for enhancement
of the compensation.
3.2 As regards degree of permanent disability of appellant he also
refers to injury described in the Schedule attached to Workmen
Compensation Act, which provides that in case of amputation the extent of
permanent disability should be treated at 90%.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance
Company submits that if the extent of permanent disability is to be taken
from the Workmen Compensation Act, then all other parameters shall also be
taken from there and that calculation of compensation would not come above
Rs.10,00,000/-. As regards the degree of permanent disability, otherwise he
submits that the same has to be considered looking to the nature of work,
which was being carried out by the injured at the time of accident. He
submits that looking to the fact that the appellant was a Labourer he can still
do some kind of work, though not the earlier work. As such, he submits that
there is no complete loss of earning capacity and that is why the Tribunal has
taken it at 50%. he submits that even the Labour work can be continued, but
with less competency.
4.1 In support of their submissions both the counsel have placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in 2011 ACJ 1 .
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23383
4 MA-4878-2023
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the record.
6. The claims Tribunal while considering the extent of permanent
disability of the appellant has observed in para 12 of the award that the
statement of Dr. Ashish Mehrotra (AW-3) and certificate Ex.P/10 duly
proved the permanent disability sustained by the appellant. However, the
extent of permanent disability for loss of earning capacity has been
considered in para 14 of the award in which it was observed by the claims
Tribunal that at the time of accident appellant was 19 years of age and apart
from amputation of his left hand from shoulder, he has not sustained
permanent disability in other parts of the body. Thus, the Tribunal concluded
the permanent disability for loss of earning capacity at 50%. In the
considered view of this Court this could not have been the criteria for
determining the permanent disability. It has to be seen with respect to nature
of work, which was being carried out by the injured at the time of accident.
The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering this aspect in the case of
Rajkumar (supra) has observed that it is the nature of work, which has to be
kept in mind while assessing permanent disability with respect to loss of
earning. In some cases it may be less looking to the nature of duties and in
some cases it is more than what has been certified by the Doctor.
7. In the present case the appellant was working as a Labour before his
accident. In fact he was returning from doing Labour work when the accident
occurred. The claims Tribunal has also recorded finding in para 17 of the
impugned award that appellant has been treated as unskilled Labour. In this
view of the matter the functional disability suffered by the appellant is much
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23383
5 MA-4878-2023
more than 50%. In the considered view of this Court the appellant has to shift
from his earlier work to some other kind of work and for this reason the
permanent disability of the appellant is taken at 80%.
8. It is seen from the record that the claims Tribunal has taken income
of the appellant at Rs.8,275/- per month by treating him as an unskilled
labour on notional basis, but as per the guidelines issued by the State Legal
Services Authority the minimum wages for the said period were Rs.7,950/-.
Thus, income of the appellant is changed from Rs.8,275/- to Rs.7,950/- per
month.
9. As regards other heads it is seen from para 19 of the award that an
amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded for pain and suffering, which in the
considered view of this Court is very less for amputation of left hand from
shoulder. Thus, this Court changed the same to Rs.50,000/-, for special diet
is changed from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-, for attender and transportation is
changed from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/-, for loss of income during the
period of treatment is changed from four months to six months, which would
come to Rs.47,700/- and for loss of amenities of life and marriage prospects
Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded.
10. As such, the amount for loss of earning capacity would now come
to Rs.19,23,264/- and the total compensation would come to Rs.21,90,964/-.
The claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs.13,49,280/-. Thus, the appellant
is now required to be paid Rs.8,41,684/- over and above the amount already
awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @
6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its payment.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23383
6 MA-4878-2023
11. It is seen from the record that the appeal has been valued at
Rs.5,00,000/-, thus the appellant has to pay the deficit Court fees within four
week from today.
12. Accordingly, the present misc.appeal is allowed in above terms.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
patil
