Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj @ Neeru vs Puneet Mittal on 17 March, 2025
1 MA-738-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
MISC. APPEAL No. 738 of 2017
NEERAJ @ NEERU
Versus
PUNEET MITTAL AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Akshat Kumar Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal- Advocate for the respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting: Yes/No.
Reserved for order on: 28/02/2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 17/03/2025)
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
is filed by the appellant, being aggrieved of award dated 18.04.2017,
passed by learned IV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena
(M.P.), in Claim Case No.282/2013, on the ground that claimant - Neeraj
Sharma, sustained serious injuries in an accident which took place on
05.02.2013.
[2]. Shri Akshat Kumar Jain, learned counsel for appellant, submits that
learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount under different heads and
permanent disability too has been considered on the lower side at 10%
which needs to be enhanced. He submits that he is unable to perform his
job of cleaner and, therefore, functional disability ought to have taken to
be 100%. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to award
compensation towards special diet, attendant charges and future prospects.
2 MA-738-2017
He also submits that he was entitled to compensation based upon
minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident. The learned counsel for
appellant relied upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Meena Devi Vs. Nanu Chand Mahto & ors. reported in (2023) 1
SCC 204, Ashok Kumar Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in
(2024) 1 SCC 357, Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi Vs. Abdul Munaf &
Ors. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 284, Chandramma Vs. Manager,
Regional Office, NCC Ltd. & another reported in 2023 ACJ 806, Indra
Bai Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2023)8 SCC
217 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Beti Vs.
Surendra Sharma in M.A. No.505 of 2017, Fagulal Vanvasi (Kol) Vs.
Kalyanika Kendriya Shiksha Niketan Amarkantak and Ors. in M.A.
No.1076 of 2021.
[3]. Shri B.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company,
opposed the prayer. He submits that based on the evidence led by
appellant, particularly in view of statement given by doctor, it cannot be
said that the appellant has suffered permanent disability of even 10%.
Referring to various paragraphs of appellant's statement, it is submitted by
him that there is no functional disability suffered by appellant which
warrants enhancement of compensation on this count. He further submits
that the appellant himself has come up with a case that he is earning
Rs.4,500/- per month and, therefore, his claim for payment of minimum
wages cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for respondent relied upon
the judgments passed by Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay
Kumar & another reported in (2011)1 SCC 343, Shantilata Sethy &
another Vs. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. &
another reported in 2022 ACJ 1233, Chaus Taushif Alimiya & another
Vs. Memon Mahmmad Umar Anwarbhai & Ors. reported in 2023 ACJ
3 MA-738-2017
726 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Manisha
Vs. Pushpendra Singh & Ors. in M.A. No.3129 of 2019, National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay & ors. reported in 2009 ACJ 101.
[4]. In this appeal, the appellant has claimed compensation based upon
minimum wages which is stated to be Rs.5,270/- per month for skilled
workman as reflected in the case of Fagulal Vanvasi (supra). In this
regard, the argument of learned counsel for the respondent-Company
needs to be accepted. In para 5 of his claim petition, the appellant himself
has stated that he was earning Rs.4,500/- per month and Rs.100/- per day
was being paid to him towards his meals. The Apex Court in the case of
Chaus Taushif Alimiya (supra) held in para 16 as under:
"16. The claim for enhancement of income cannot be
accepted. The appellants themselves had claimed Rs. 3,000/-
before the High Court which claim had been accepted. The
High Court has held that it was just and reasonable
considering the year when the accident had taken place and
also relying upon the contention raised by the appellants. The
High Court had also awarded 50 per cent addition under the
head 'future prospects' and therefore, any claim in respect of
the same cannot be entertained."
[5]. Thus, in view of specific claim made by appellant himself, his claim
for grant of compensation based upon minimum wages cannot be
accepted. The appellant did not produce any certificate in respect of his
income of Rs.4,500/-. The employer was also not examined. It is,
therefore, difficult to accept the appellant's contention that he was
working as cleaner in the truck and, therefore, needs to be treated as
skilled workman. However, in absence of proof of appellant's income, and
in order to arrive at just and fair compensation, the appellant's income is
accepted at Rs.4,945/- per month which is the minimum wages payable to
an unskilled labourer at the relevant time.
[6]. The second argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the
Tribunal has erred in treating his permanent disability to be 10% even
4 MA-738-2017
though the doctor has given certificate of 20% disability. He further
submits that since he is not able to perform his duty after the accident, the
disability ought to have been taken to be 100% in view of judgment
rendered in the case of Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi (supra),
Chandramma (supra) and Indra Bai (supra). The Apex Court in the
case of Chandramma, held in para 23 as under:
"23. Having considered the aforesaid facts of the present case
and the dictum of the judicial pronouncements referred to
above and the position of the appellant after the accident,
incapacitated her from carrying out her vocation as a
labourer, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed
by the High Court is not liable to be sustained. The functional
disability of the appellant is liable to be assessed as 100%
and, accordingly, the compensation is to be determined. The
functional disability of the appellant being 100%, her age
being 40 years and income being Rs.8000/-, 60% whereof
works out to be Rs.4800/- and applying the multiplier of
184.17, as per Schedule IV of the 1993 Act, the compensation
works out to be Rs.8,84,016/-. Adding an amount of
Rs.42,200/- towards medical expenses for which the bills were
presented, the total compensation works out to be
Rs.9,26,216/- rounded of to Rs. 9,30,000/-. The appellant shall
also be entitled for payment of interest @ 9% per annum, from
the date of making the application till the date of actual
payment."
[7]. Similarly, in the case of Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi (supra) &
Indra Bai (supra), the Apex Court has held that it is the functional
disability and not just the physical disability which needs to be considered
while assessing the compensation. Thus, functional disability needs to be
considered in the facts of a particular case.
[8]. In the instant case, the accident occurred on 05.02.2013. The doctor
has given a certificate, dated 14.06.2016, of 20% physical disability which
is Ex. P/39. The certificate is given after lapse of more than three years.
The statement of Dr. Snjeev Bandil (PW-2) and that of appellant (PW-1)
needs to be considered while deciding this issue. Dr. Sanjeev Bandil has
stated that the appellant's preliminary treatment and MLC was not done by
5 MA-738-2017
him; the appellant's nailing, plating & operation was not done by him; the
victim was treated by him during 01.04.2013 to 16.04.2013 i.e. after two
months; he has issued disability certificate (Ex. P/39) based upon the
discharge ticket, dated 05.02.2013, issued by J.H. Hospital; the physical
disability of 20% assessed by him was in respect of whole body; there is
Medical Board in District Hospital, Morena (M.P.). The doctor has not
stated that appellant is unable to perform his work. Meaning thereby, there
is no functional disability suffered to him.
[9]. As per Ex. P/6, only two injuries are suffered by appellant - one in
chest and other in hand. There is no mention of any other injury in Ex. P/6
which the appellant alleges to have suffered.
[10]. The appellant in his statement has not stated specifically as to
whether he is unable to perform his work. He accepted that he has come to
Court by walking from bus stand and has come without any assistance;
that Dr. Sanjeev Bandil has not operated him; that he has not produced
record with regard to treatment given by Dr. Bandil and expenses incurred
by him in that regard; he also did not produce any record and/or any other
evidence to show that he requires treatment in future; that as per Ex. P/14,
CT Scan is normal. Though he stated that he face difficulty in sitting and
getting up, walking and performing work but the same is not supported by
any evidence.
[11]. The learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on
judgment in case of Raj Kumar (supra) wherein, Apex Court in para 18
held as under:
"18.The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed
to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the
injured but who give `ready to use' disability certificates,
without proper medical assessment. There are several
instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the
injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the
claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by
6 MA-738-2017
duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted
subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such
certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to
require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or
who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a
disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof
of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who
treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed
the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-
examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is
not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the
claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel
maintained by it in consultation with reputed local
Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such
Medical Board for assessment of the disability."
[12]. He has also relied upon judgment of this court in the case of Smt.
Manisha (supra) wherein this court held as under:
"In the case at hand, it was incumbent upon the appellants to
have established that they suffered permanent disablement
due to the accident caused to them. Evident it is from the
record that the claimants did not file any certificate issued by
the Medical Board constituted for the purpose of
determination of the disability of a person. The certificate
issued by the private doctor cannot be said to have
established, under law, that the appellants suffered permanent
disability."
[13]. On meticulously appreciation of evidence, the conclusion of
tribunal that 10% functional disability is suffered by the appellant is held
justified. From the discussion of statement of appellant and Dr. Bandil and
also from the law laid down in the cases mentioned above, I am in
agreement with the findings recorded by learned Tribunal and the same is
hereby affirmed.
[14]. The another argument of learned counsel for appellant is that the
Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future prospects. The
appellant deserve compensation under this head. Looking to the age of
appellant i.e. 21 to 25 years, the amount equal to 40% needs to be awarded
to the appellant. Likewise, the Tribunal has failed to award adequate
amount towards special diet, attendant charges, transportation.
7 MA-738-2017
[15]. Thus, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going
through the record, the amount of compensation is enhanced as under:
Sr. Head under which compensation is Amount awarded/enhanced
No. awarded/enhanced
1 Future Prospects @ 40% 4,945/-+40% = 6,923/-
6,923/- X 12 = 83,076/-
83,076/- X 10% = 8,307.6/-
8,307.6/- X18 = 1,49,536.8/-
Tribunal awarded Rs.75,600/- 1,49,536.8 - 75,600 =73,936.8/-
2 Special Diet Rs.5,000/-
3 Attendant @ Rs.5,000/- for two Rs.10,000/-
months.
4 Transport Rs.5,000/-
Total (1+2+3+4) Rs.93,936.80/-
[16]. Thus, there will be addition of Rs.93,936.80/- (Rs. Ninety Three
Thousand, Nine Hundred Thirty Six Only), which will be admissible in
favour of the appellant in addition to the amount awarded by the learned
Claims Tribunal. This additional amount will also earn interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of application till the date of actual payment. Other
terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
Vpn/-
