[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aasif Ali vs Sukhdevsingh on 30 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3138
1 MA-172-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 30th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 172 of 2017
AASIF ALI
Versus
SUKHDEVSINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sourabh Neema - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Abhay Chand Jain - Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
This Misc. Appeal has been preferred under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned award dated 20/10/2016
passed by III Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shajapur (M.P.) in
Claim Case No.73/2013, whereby an amount of Rs.5,95,840/- has been
awarded with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of
claim petition 08/08/2013.
2. Appellant's / Claimant's case is that on 05/04/2011 appellant riding
on his motorcycle was going from Dhobi Chouraha, A. B. Road to Tanki
Chouraha, when he reached nearby Tank Chouraha, offending vehicle Truck
bearing registration RJ-11-GA-0871 driven rashly and negligently by
respondent No.2 dashed his motorcycle. He has suffered grievous injuries in
his shoulder and fracture in elbow, whereby damaging nerves of his right
hand. He has also suffered fracture in lower Mandible bone. Due to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3138
2 MA-172-2017
neurological impact, his hand became completely insensible, which caused
100% functional disablement as he was doing Carpentry work before the
date of accident. On these counts, he filed claim petition.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from perusal of
medical papers, which have been supported by witness Dr. N. K. Gupta
(AW-3), it is apparent that nerves of the right hand of the appellant / victim
were damaged resulting in his 100% functional disability, but learned
Tribunal has failed to appreciate the law on the point. In the certificate (Ex.-
P/44) it is proved by Dr. N. K. Gupta (AW-3) that permanent disability has
been found 95%. Learned Claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate the
evidence in right perspective and assessed disability 30% only.
4. To buttress his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on
the judgment in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Shrinivas Sabata
and Another reported in 1976 A.C.J. 141 ; Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and
Another reported in 2011 ACJ 1 ; Shri Pal Vs. Union of India and Others
reported in 2022 ACJ 187 ; Managing Director, State Express Trans. Corpn.
Ltd. Vs. Dr. Saravana Ruban reported in 2019 ACJ 2438 ; Syed Sadiq and
Others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in
2014 ACJ 624 ; Jagdish Vs. Mohan and Others reported in 2018 ACJ 1011 ;
Divya Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another reported in 2022 ACJ
2533; V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and Another reported in 2014 ACJ 1441 ;
and Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir and Others reported in 2015 ACJ 721 . Specially
he has placed reliance on para 10 of the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar
(Supra) to prove functional disability. On these submissions, learned counsel
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3138
3 MA-172-2017
prays for enhancement of the award amount by allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that
learned Claims Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in right perspective.
By the evidence adduced it is not proved that appellant has become 100%
disabled due to injury suffered in his hand. It has also not been proved that he
is not in a position to pursue any other business. On these submissions,
learned counsel submits that no fault can be found with in the impugned
award. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From perusal of the mark sheet (Ex.-A/142-C) the date of birth of
the appellant / victim is 02/05/1987 and the incident took place on
05/04/2011. Accordingly, age of the appellant / victim comes 24 years on the
date of accident, which in para 26 of the impugned award has been taken as
27 years, is held to be erroneous as per the evidence available on record,
therefore, in view of the above, as per para 42 of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and followed in para 59
in the case of National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680 , multiplier of 18 should have been applied at the place of
multiplier of 17, which has been used by the Claims Tribunal in para 27 of
the impugned award.
8. With regard to the profession of appellant, Aasif Ali (AW-1) has
asserted that appellant was making Reeps in Cot Factory thereby earning
wages. Thus, it is apparent that he was not doing actual carpenter work but
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3138
4 MA-172-2017
was working as labourer for making Wooden Reeps, therefore, arguments
advanced on behalf of the appellant that he was carpenter and the injury
suffered by him in right hand sustaining 100% functional disability is not
acceptable. Para 10 of the judgment relied upon in the case of Raj Kumar
(Supra) and the instances given therein in respect of Carpenter is not
applicable in the instant case.
9. It appears appropriate to take his disability to the extent of 50%
only, thus, the disability assessed by the Claims Tribunal 30% is increased to
50% in the facts of the case.
10. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of appellant as
Rs.4,000/- per month, but as per the circular issued by Labour Department of
Madhya Pradesh under the Minimum Wages Act, income of Rs.4,675/- per
month for a skilled persons on the date of accident i.e. 05/04/2011 is to be
taken, therefore, instead of Rs.4,000/- per month, income of Rs.4,675/- per
month is assessed as skilled labour.
11. As per para 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (Supra) , looking to the age 24
years of appellant at the time of accident, 40% is to be added in the head of
Future Prospects.
12. The amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the head of Loss
of Marriage Prospects Rs.25,000/- is proper and needs no interference. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded in the heads of Pain
and Sufferings seems to be inadequate, therefore, the same is enhanced from
Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. A lump sup amount of Rs.50,000/- is also added
in the head 'expenditure on Attendant' and Rs.10,000/- is added towards
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3138
5 MA-172-2017
expenses incurred in transportation.
13. Thus, the just and proper compensation comes as under:
Rs.4,675/- per month + Rs.1,870/- (40% Future
Loss of Earning on
Prospects) = Rs.6,545/- per month x 12 =
account of
Rs.78,540/- x 18 multiplier = Rs.14,13,720/-;
Disability: 50% loss of earning comes to Rs.7,06,860/-
Medical Expenses: Rs.3,08,040/-
Loss of Marriage
Rs.25,000/-
Prospects:
Pain and Sufferings: Rs.50,000/-
Attendant: Rs.50,000/-
Transportation: Rs.10,000/-
Total: Rs.11,49,900/-
MACT Awarded: Rs.5,95,840/-
Enhanced
Rs.5,54,060/-
Amount:
14. Thus, the amount is enhanced and appellant / claimant is entitled to
an additional amount of Rs.5,54,060/- over and above the amount, which has
been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The other terms and conditions of the
impugned award shall remain intact.
15. Appellant has already paid court fees of Rs.30,000/- on the
valuation of the appeal of Rs.12,00,000/-, therefore, no further court fees is
required to be paid in the matter.
16. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed as
indicated hereinabove.
Certified copy as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Tej
