Chandan Chouhan vs Ajaruddin Khan

This appeal filed by the claimant/appellant arises out of the award dated 31.01.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the “Tribunal”) Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 574/2013 whereby in an injury case compensation of Rs. 2,90,100/- has been awarded to the claimant/appellant herein.

Facts of the case, in brief are that on 8.12.2012, the appellant along with other persons was going to Village Chandrapur for temple visit in a Pick-Up van, at the time of returning when they reached Near By-pass road, Kosamnara Chowk, Kotra Road, Raipur, at about 4-6 PM the offending vehicle i.e. Tata Motors Pick Up bearing No. CG-13 D-9419 driven by Respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, dashed the vehicle of appellant, as a result of which, the claimant/appellant suffered number of injuries. His right hand amputated from elbow. The appellant was hospitalized and as per certificate (Ex. P/13), he has suffered 50% disability. A claim case was filed by the claimant/appellant claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 73,50,000/- under various heads, inter alia, pleading that after the accident, the claimant is unable to perform his day-to-day work.

Pleadings of the claimant has, however, been denied by the respondents-driver, owner and Insurance Company.

The Claims Tribunal by the impugned award has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,90,100/- to the appellant under various head such as pain & suffering, special diet and expenses incurred in the treatment. It is this award which has been challenged by the appellant in this appeal.

Counsel for the appellant submits that:

• The Claims Tribunal has erred in law in awarding very negligible compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant.

• No amount has been granted under the head “future treatment”. The sum awarded under the head “pain & suffering' is also on the lower side.

• The monthly income assessed by the learned Tribunal is not as per guidelines.

• The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the right hand of the appellant has been amputated from elbow which has affected the whole body of appellant, due to which, he is unable to perform his professional work and earn money, therefore, learned Tribunal ought to have assessed 100% disability for assessing compensation.

In support of his argument learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the matter of Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54, Vimal Kanwar & Ors. Vs. Kishore Dan & Ors. reported in (2013) 7 SCC 476.

No one appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 though notice has been served.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supported the impugned award and submitted that the award of compensation passed by learned Tribunal is just and proper.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Admittedly, the claimant/appellant has suffered grievous injuries and his right hand is amputated from elbow and as per disability certificate (Ex. P/23) he suffered 50% disability.

Learned Tribunal calculated the income of the appellant Rs. 3,000/- per month and awarded Rs. 2,04,000/- in the head of loss of income, Rs. 11, 100/- for treatment, Rs. 25,000/- for special diet and Rs. 50,000/- for pain and suffering.

In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, it should neither be meager amount of compensation nor bonanza. Now, this Court has to examined as to whether the compensation of Rs. 2,90,100/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

As per Schedule -II of Workman Compensation Act amputation of right hand disability is calculated as 60%. The incident took place in the year 2012 and at that time notional income was calculated as Rs. 4,000/- per month. Thus, keeping in view the above things, this Court is of the opinion that amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side and requires reconsideration.

Considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2012 when notional income was Rs. 4,000/-, the appellant's monthly income can safely be taken as Rs. 4,000/-per month i.e. 48,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/3 amount the annual income is Rs. 32,000/-. Since at the time in incident appellant was 30 years of age, it is appropriate to apply multiplication of 17 in the annual income of the appellant. After applying the multiplication of 17 total amount is 32,000/- x 17 = 5,44,000/-. Thus, the total income of the appellant would have been Rs. 5,44,000/-. 60% amount of total income due to disability comes Rs. 3,31,840/-.

Furthermore, the learned Tribunal did not award any amount for suffering grievous injures. So, the claimant is entitled for compensation in the following manner:-

Head

Amount awarded

Amount enhanced

For loss of amenities, pleasure of life due to amputation of hand

Nil

Rs.50,000/-

For Medical Expenses

Rs.11,100/-

Rs.15,000/-

For Future Treatment

Nil

Nil

For Pain and Suffering

Rs.50,000/-

Rs.50,000/-

For Special Diet

Rs.25,000/-

Rs.25,000/-

For Conveyance

Nil

Rs.10,000/-

For Loss of income due to disability

2,04,000/-

Rs.3,31,840/-

Total

Rs. 2,90,100/-

Rs.4,81,840/-

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,81,840/-. Since, the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs.2,90,100/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimant/appellant is entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.1,91,740/- (4,81,840 - 2,90,100). This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. The amount received by the claimant, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above.