Kamal Aanjna vs Nirbhay Singh
2025 Latest Caselaw 5870 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kamal Aanjna vs Nirbhay Singh on 22 March, 2025

Author: Prem Narayan Singh

Bench: Prem Narayan Singh

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7687




                                                             1                                 MA-2106-2014
                             IN        THE   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                                 MISC. APPEAL No. 2106 of 2014
                                                     KAMAL AANJNA
                                                          Versus
                                                NIRBHAY SINGH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                  Shri Gopal Krishna Neema - advocate for the appellant.
                                  Shri Manoj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent [R-3].

                                               Heard on             :     06.03.2025

                                               Pronounced on         :    22.03.2025

                                                            JUDGMENT

1. The appellant - claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved by award dated 31.07.2014 passed in MACC No.35/2012 by Tenth Additional Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ujjain, District Ujjain whereby a total compensation amount of Rs.74,230/- has been awarded in favour of the

claimant.

2. The present appeal is filed seeking enhancement in compensation amount up to Rs.8,00,000/-.

3. In short, the facts of the case are that on 02.05.2012, the appellant who happens to be a mason, was returning back to his village Halukhedi

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7687

2 MA-2106-2014 from Ujjain along with his friend Dilip Anjana at that time, respondent no.1 was was driving the Mahindra Pick-up vehicle MP-42-G-0350 of respondent no.2 rashly and negligently, dashed down the appellant due which he suffered fracture of femur bone in the right leg, fracture in nasal bone, fracture in right ankle, fracture in radius bone and head injury causing permanent disability.

4. The Tribunal while awarding the amount of compensation has considered the entire evidence placed on record and after recording evidence Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.74,230/- in the following heads:

                                Medical expenses                                Rs.64,331/-
                                Loss of income due to injury                     Rs.3,900/-
                                Transportation charges                           Rs.1,000/-
                                Mental Pain and sufferings                         Rs.5,000/-
                                TOTAL                                           Rs.74,230/-

5. As it is a case of head on collusion tribunal held that it is a case of contributory negligence and deducted 50% for contributory negligence and held that insurance company is liable for 50% amount i.e. Rs.37,115/-.

6. This appeal has been filed on the ground that the Learned Member of the Tribunal has wrongly adjudicated regarding the expenses in the treatment of the Appellant and passed award only Rs.74,230/- however the cumulative calculation of expenses is around Rs.8,00,000/-. The appellant is young man aged about 25 years, labourer. Due to the accident he has suffered fracture of femur bone in the right leg, fracture in nasal bone, fracture in right ankle, fracture in radius bone and head injury, which made

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7687

3 MA-2106-2014 him incapable for doing his physical work. He was hospitalised for 12 days from 02.05.2012 to 14.05.2012. The learned Tribunal has decided the claim of the appellant without minutely going through the documents exhibited which includes history of treatment of the appellant from the date of accident. The learned Tribunal has also ignored the disability certificate Ex.P/53 and nothing has been awarded in the head of permanent disability, whereas the Dr. P.N. Das (P.W.2) has opined in his statement for 66.5% of permanent disability in favour the claimant / injured. That apart the tribunal has also wrongly assumed contributory negligence of 50% against the claimant whereas no evidence has been produced by the respondent in this regard. Learned tribunal has awarded only Rs.64,361/- in the head of medical expenses, loss of income during treatment as Rs.3900/- and Rs.1000/- for conveyance, as such calculated only Rs.74,230/-. Thereafter, for contributory negligence 50% of that amount (i.e. Rs.37,115/-) was deducted and awarded Rs.37,115/- to the claimant /injured. The interest of 6% is also on very low as per settled law on this point. Hence it is entreated to enhance the amount of award to the extent of Rs.8.00 lakhs.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error and has rightly passed the award in favour of the appellant. It is a case of head on collusion, therefore, the tribunal has rightly held that in case of contributory negligence insurance

company is liable for 50% of the awarded amount.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7687

4 MA-2106-2014

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused record.

8. In view of the rival submissions and the material available on record it is evidence that Dr. P.N.Das (P.W.2) has given a disability certificate by calculating the disability as 66.5% through modified cashless method, however, in the cross examination it was suggested by the learned counsel of Insurance company that for the whole body it can be only 26%. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that when counsel for the insurance company himself has suggested 26% of permanent disability, the tribunal should have calculated the permanent disability on the basis of 26%. The submissions of learned counsel for the claimant is substantial as the suggestion was given by learned counsel for the insurance company himself. That apart I have also gone though the record. The claimant has received grievous injuries over his upper limbs, lower limbs head and face. Disability certificate Ex.P/13 has been prepared categorically by the respective Doctor, hence the statement of doctor on the basis of calculation could not be brushed aside. Therefore, this Court is of the view that 26% of disability should be assumed in favour of claimant/injured.

9. The appellant is a mason and monthly income has to be considered as per minimum wages chart and evidence available on record, and it is taken as Rs.4770/- and since the appellant is 25 years old person, future prospectus is required to be calculated @ 40% on Rs.4770/- i.e. Rs.6678/- (4770+1908) per month and yearly it amounts to Rs.80,136/- (Rs.6678 * 12). Considering the age of the injured as 25 years, multiplier of 18 is applied and thereafter

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7687

5 MA-2106-2014 on the basis of @ 26% permanent disability the calculation comes to Rs.3,75,036/-. Likewise, due to the injuries and hospitalization, the appellant was not able to perform his regular duties for 70 days from the date of the accident, therefore, the head of loss of income of 70 days is increased by Rs.6,100/-i.e. Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.3,900/-. Similarly the head of Transportation charges is increased upto Rs.5,000/- and Special Diet, Pain and suffering and Attendant charges are assessed as Rs.5000/- under each head. For medical expenses the order of learned tribunal is not warranting any interference and hence the same is maintained as Rs.64,361/-. As such, the total amount of award will be Rs.4,69,397/- as per the chart below:-

                                Permanent disability                       Rs.3,75,036/-
                                Loss of income                             Rs.10,000/-
                                Transportation charges                      Rs.5,000/-
                                Mental Pain & suffering                     Rs.5,000/-
                                Medical expenses                           Rs.64,361/-
                                Special Diet                                Rs.5,000/-
                                Attendant                                  Rs.5,000/-
                                TOTAL                                     Rs.4,69,397/-

10. The amount awarded by the tribunal is Rs.74,230/- the difference of assessment is Rs.395,167/-. Wherein coming to the part of contributory negligence it is revealed that claimant/injured was travelling on bike, while the offending vehicle is Mahinda Bollero which is bigger than bike. Certainly, it is head on collusion, hence it would be appropriate to calculate 50% contributory negligence against claimant/injured.

11. In this regard the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7687

6 MA-2106-2014 of T.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan & Ors . reported as 2008(2) SCC (CRI)738 is worth to refer here under, wherein it has been held as under:

7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an accident, and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other driver alleging negligence, and the other driver denies negligence or claims that the injured claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider whether the injured claimant was negligent and if so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his responsibility, that is his contributory negligence. Therefore where the injured is himself partly liable, the principle of 'composite negligence' will not apply nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence was 50:50 as has been assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion between composite negligence and contributory negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said error.

8.***

9.***

10***

11. As we have found that the extent of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant is only 25% and not 50%, the compensation has to be reduced only by 25% and not 50%. Therefore, the compensation awardable to the appellant will be Rs.1,18,725 (that is Rs.1,58,300 less 25% thereof). As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.39,250 and the High Court has awarded another Rs.39,900, the appellant will be entitled to the balance of Rs.39,575 as additional compensation.

12. In view of the aforesaid law, I have considered the evidence of parties, as per the statement of claimant Kamal Aanjna, he was driving

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7687

7 MA-2106-2014 his vehicle slowly on right side, but on the same time, offending vehicle Bollero Pick up came rashly and negligently and collided with his vehicle. The statement regarding rashness and negligence of offending vehicle has not been controverted in the cross-examination. In this regard, no witness has been adduced by the insurance company or by driver or owner of the vehicle. Under these conditions, looking to the fact that there was head on collusion only 25% should be assumed against the claimant/injured for his contributory negligence, therefore that 25% will be deducted from Rs.4,69,397/- i.e. Rs.3,52,047/- (Rs.4,69,397- Rs.1,17,349). The tribunal has awarded only Rs.37,115/- in favour of claimant the enhanced amount will be Rs.3,52,047/-.

13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs.3,52,047/-. The enhanced amount shall bear interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. The other findings recorded by the Tribunal shall remain intact. In view of above, miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellants- claimants stands disposed of.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE sumathi