Hiralal vs Kahkasha And others

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the claimant challenging the award dated 18/11/2015 passed by the MACT, Neemuch in Claims Case No.144/2014 seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal.

The appellant/claimant had filed the claim petition before the tribunal with the plea that on 27/04/2013 the appellant along with his employer was going in the car No.MP 09-CC 7968 when the accident was caused by truck No.MP 14-HA-0002 driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No.2, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.3. In the said accident, the multiple fractures were received by the appellant and he was hospitalized. It was further pleaded that the appellant was doing the work of driver and had become unfit to do that work, therefore, he had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 100%, hence the compensation of Rs.34,27,000/- was claimed.

The respondents No.1 and 2 had not filed any reply before the tribunal.

The respondent No.3/insurance company by filing the reply had opposed the claim petition and had also raised the plea of violation of the policy condition.

The tribunal by permitting the parties to lead evidence and after examining the same had found that the accident was caused by truck No.MP 14-HA-0002 driven in rash and negligent manner by the respondent No.2 and in the said accident the appellant had received grievous injuries and had suffered permanent disability. The tribunal further found that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and there was no violation of the policy condition. Accordingly the tribunal had fastened the liability upon the respondent/insurance company. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards the actual medical expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards the attender charges, Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of income and Rs.5,000/- towards the special diet. The tribunal has awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/-towards the permanent disability. Thus the tribunal has passed the award of Rs.1,55,000/- along with the interest @ 8% from the date of filing of the application.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding the lump-sum amount under the permanent disability, whereas the tribunal ought to have calculated the compensation in terms of the extent of permanent disability suffered by the appellant.

As against this, learned counsel for the insurance company has supported the impugned award.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the appellant has placed on record the necessary documents showing the extent to injuries suffered by him and the permanent disability. The discharge summery contained in Annx.P/13 reveals that the appellant had suffered the comminuted fractures involving the posterior acetabular wall and pillar along with posterosuperior dislocation of the left femur. Linear fractures involving the anterior wall and roof of the acetabulum on left side. Loose bony fragments of posterior wall fractures and the largest fragmnet measures about 4.7 cms. Medical board had issued the permanent disability certificate Exhibit P/10 noting the restricted hip movement along with foot drop. The medical board had opined that the appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 35% in reference to the whole body. The tribunal has duly taken note of Annx.P/10, P/11, P/13, P/14 and P/15 and has rightly reached to the conclusion that the appellant had suffered permanent disability in reference to the whole body but the tribunal has committed an error in awarding lump-sum amount of compensation instead of calculating the loss of income on account of the permanent disability.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case and also taking note of the medical documents, it would be just and proper to assess the permanent disability to the extent of 30% in reference to the whole body. The appellant at the time of accident was aged about 27 years, therefore, the applicable multiplier in terms of the judgement in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 would be 17. Having regard to the nature of work and year of accident, it would be safe to presume the income of the appellant as Rs.5,000/-. Hence, the loss of income on account of permanent disability comes to 5000 X 12 X 17 X 30% = 3,06,000/-, whereas the tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under this head. Hence, the appellant is entitled to a further sum of Rs.2,06,000/- under the head of the permanent disability. The amount which has been awarded by the tribunal under the other heads is just and proper.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation as awarded by the tribunal deserves to be and accordingly enhanced by a sum of Rs.2,06,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Six Hundred). The enhanced amount will bear interest at the same rate as awarded by the tribunal and will be governed by the same conditions as contained in the award of the tribunal.

No costs.