Chetan Lal Dewangan vs Ashok Kumar and Others

R.L. Jhanwar, J.—Appellant Chetan Lal Dewangan is seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (in short ''the Tribunal'') in Claim Case No. 154/2008 vide award dated 25th February, 2010. As against the compensation of Rs. 3,26,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 4th August, 2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 88,800/- as compensation to the claimant alongwith interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Chetan Lal Dewangan sustained multiple injuries in the motor accident on 4th August, 2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle i.e. bus bearing registration No. C.G. 07 E 127 and as the offending bus was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was also liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the impugned order, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality.

The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the appellant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on his treatment, awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses incurred in treatment, special diet and conveyance charges, Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 9,000/-towards loss of earning in the course of treatment, Rs. 19,800/- towards loss of income on account of permanent disability and Rs. 30,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss on account of permanent disability. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs. 88,800/- as compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 88,800/- at 6% per annum from the date of the filing of claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Shri V.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal, taking into consideration the permanent disability to the extent of 30% and the appellant was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month, has erred in assessing loss of earning at Rs. 150/- per month and Rs. 1800/- per annum whereas the total loss of earning should be at Rs. 1,18,800/- if the Tribunal ought to have assessed the loss of earning at Rs. 900/- instead of Rs. 150/-, and Rs. 10,800/- as annual loss of earning.

On the other hand, Shri G.V.K. Rao, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 88,800/ - as total compensation and no leniency should be shown in enhancing the amount of compensation because the learned Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 20,000/- under the head pain and suffering and again Rs. 30,000/- under the head non- pecuniary loss on account of permanent disablement, which is on higher side whereas it should at Rs. 20,000/-.

Having heard rival submissions, I have perused the record of the Tribunal including its impugned award. The Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, held that although the appellant could not produce any certificate to show his exact income but his income should not be less than Rs. 3,000/- which amount an un-skilled labour is earning. Accordingly, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000/-. The approach of the Tribunal in assessing monthly income of the appellant is proper. However, the Tribunal, considering the permanent disability to the extent of 30% suffered by the appellant, has fallen into error in taking Rs. 150/- as his loss of earning; in awarding Rs. 19,800/-towards loss of earning on account of permanent disability of 30%. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss on account of permanent disability and Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering. The non-pecuniary loss would mean that it cannot be calculated by money.

Claimant Chetan Lal Dewangan was aged 55 years on the date of accident. He used to earn his livelihood by doing labour work in a hotel. Due to injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, he remained admitted in Government hospital, Rajnandgaon and during course of treatment he must have spent amount substantially on his treatment and as a result of injuries, he suffered 30% permanent disability on his left hand, as is evident from Ext. P.8, a certificate issued by the Medical Board, Rajnandgaon and this was also proved by A.W. 2 Dr. Anil Mahakalkar affirming the permanent disability suffered by the appellant.

On due consideration of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and all the relevant factors including the above mentioned broad features of the case, I am of the opinion that further award of Rs. 61,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs. 88,800/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed partly. The appellant/claimant is awarded further sum of Rs. 61,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation, in addition to the sum of Rs. 88,800/ - awarded by the Tribunal. Respondent No. 3-National Insurance Co. Ltd. Is granted 3 months'' time for depositing the sum of Rs. 61,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs.