Jayshankar Jugalkishor Joshi vs G. Senthilkumar Govindan Gaodar (Deleted) & 5 Other(S)

A.G.Uraizee, J

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘M.V. Act’ for short) for enhancement of compensation which is awarded by the MACT (Aux.), Fast Track Court No.3, Vadodara in MACP No.800/2003 vide judgment and award dated 4.01.2007.

The facts in brief as could be gathered from the memo of appeal and connected material are that the appellant on dated 28/01/2003 was returning from Rajasthan to Karjan and traveling with bags of Cron-flakes in Temp bearing no.GJ-7-X-4295 and when tempo reached nr. Railway Fatak at Karjan, at that time respondent no.1, Driver of Truck No. KA-1-AA-1063, who was going ahead of the tempo of the appellant suddenly, stopped his truck by applied short bracks and the tempo, which was following the truck dashed with the truck from backside. It is submitted that due to this accident the appellant sustain injuries on left leg, right leg, on the head and in mouth. This injury caused amputation of right leg. It is also submitted that the appellant got permanent disablement on left leg and in the mouth. It is submitted that the appellant got 85% total disablement body as a whole.

Therefore the appellant has prayed the compensation against the present respondent by way of filing a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara and prayed Rs.18,00,000/- and held these respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation.

After looking the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence made by both the sides namely appellant and respondents and after full-fledged trial, the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal pleased to partly allowed the claim petition of the petitioners and awarded Rs.4,90,000/- with 8% interest and cost by his judgment and award dated04/01/2007.

The appellant is not happy with the quantum of compensation which is awarded to him by the tribunal. Hence, this appeal.

I have heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Mausmi Nanavati, learned advocate for Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.3 and 6 – Insurance Company. There is no representation on behalf of other respondents.

Mr. Modi, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant was a cook and was also doing religious rituals and was earning Rs.5000/- per month. However, the tribunal has considered only Rs.2000/- per month as monthly income of the appellant which is very lower side. He urges that the monthly income of the appellant may be assessed at Rs.5000/- per month. Relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and others, 2020 ACJ 2695, he submits that the prospective income at the rate of 40% considering the age of the appellant may be allowed. He has also relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case between United Insurance Company Limited v. Pappu Deo Yadav and other decided on 13.09.2018 and submitted that Rs.2,00,000/- each may be awarded under the head of pain shock and suffering and amenities of life respectively. He submits that the compensation granted for transportation and attendance and special diet is also on lower side which may be suitably enhanced. He submits that the right leg of the appellant is amputed from below the knee on account of injury suffered in the accident and artificial leg is inserted which is required to be replaced every year. Hence, compensation of Rs.24,000/- awarded for artificial leg is also on lower side and at least Rs.1,25,000/- awarded under the said. He submits that appeal may be allowed accordingly and impugned award of the tribunal may be modified and the compensation may be awarded accordingly.

Ms. Mausmi Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondents submits that in absence any evidence regarding the monthly income, the tribunal has not committed any error in assessing Rs.2000/- monthly income per month. According to her submission, at the relevant time, minimum wages as per the Government Notification for skilled labourer was Rs.2300/- per month. She, therefore, submits that if this Court is inclined to consider enhancement in the monthly income of the appellant, the monthly income f the appellant may be assessed Rs.2300/- per month. She further submits that appropriate order may be passed regarding the prospective income of the appellant in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017(16) SCC 680. It is her further submission that the compensation awarded under other heads is just and reasonable which does not call for any enhancement. She, accordingly, submits that appropriate order may be passed.

I have considered the rival submissions. The appellant had met with an accident on 28.01.2003 and as per his say, he was earning Rs.5000/- per month as a cook as well as by doing religious rituals. He did not adduced evidence to back-up his say that his monthly income was Rs.5000/-. The Tribunal has, therefore, assessed Rs.2000/-as his monthly income. After submissions of Mr. Modi, learned advocate for the appellant to consider monthly income of the appellant at Rs.5000/- per month as stated by him on oath before the tribunal should be accepted and monthly income should be assessed and Rs.5000/- cannot be countenanced. Considering the nature of work, appellant was doing cook as well as religious rituals and considering the year of accident, the ends of justice would be served if the monthly income is assessed Rs.2500/-instead of Rs.2000/- per month.

Mr. Modi, learned advocate is right in his submission that the tribunal ought to have considered the prospective rise in the income of the appellant. It emerges from the impugned judgment that the appellant is aged 35 years at the time of accident. As the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Delhi State Road Transport Corporation V. Sarla Verma reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121, 40% prospective income needs to be added in the monthly income as assessed.

It is an undisputed fact as is emerging from the medical evidence that because of serious injuries suffered by the appellant, his right leg from below the knee had to be amputated and artificial leg is inserted in his right leg. Considering such an amputation, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of composite compensation of Rs.75,000/-under the head of pain shock and suffering and enjoyment of life. Relying upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav (supra), Mr. Modi, learned advocate for the appellant urges that Rs.2,00,000/-each under the head of pain shock and suffering and amenities of life may be awarded. His submission cannot be accepted. The Court has to consider the purchasing power of the money at the relevant time when the accident had happened. It is not in dispute that the appellant had met with an accident in the year 2003 and the claimant in the case before the Delhi High Court had met with an accident in the year 2012, and therefor, Rs.2,00,000/- for pain shock and suffering and amenities and enjoyment of life is awarded. Hence, Considering the purchasing value of Rupee in the year 2003, I am of the view that it would be just and reasonable to award composite amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of pain shock and suffering and amenities of life.

The compensation awarded under other heads, in my view is just and reasonable and do not call for any effort revision.

For the foregoing reasons, the appellant is entitled to following sum of compensation:-

“Rs.2500/-+Rs.1000(40%)=Rs.3500/-x85%(Disability)=Rs.2975/-x12=Rs.35700/-x16=Rs.5,71,200/-Future Loss Rs.30,000/- (Rs.2500/-x12 Months Actual Loss)

+Rs.1,00,000/- (PSS & Enjoyment of Life)

+Rs.40,000/- (Medical)

+Rs.25,000/- (Artificial Leg)

+Rs.20,000/- (Special Diet Tra.)

Rs.7,86,200/-

-Rs.4,90,000/-=Rs.2,96,200.- Additional Enhancement.”

The tribunal is award Rs.4,90,000/- as compensation, and therefore, the appellant is entitled to Rs.2,96,200/- as additional compensation with 8% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

For the foregoing reasons, appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and award of the tribunal is modified and the appellant is held entitle of Rs.7,86,200/-as compensation instead of Rs.4,90,000/-, and accordingly, he is entitled to Rs.2,96,200/- as additional compensation with 8% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of additional compensation along with interest in the tribunal on or before 30th June, 2022.

Parties to bear their own costs.

Record and Proceedings be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith.