High CourtsDivision Bench

Jitendra Singh Yadva vs Union of India & others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 14 February 2017 · Citation: (2017) 02 MP CK 0217

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K.Awasthi
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=2221>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, <a href=2221-173>Section 173</a>, <a href=15711-173>Section 173</a>, <a href=2221-166>Section 166</a>, <a href=15711-166>Section 166</a> - Appeals - Application for compensation
CASE NUMBER
202 of 2006
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

24 paragraphs · 767 words
1.

Assailing the award dated 9.11.2005 passed by First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity, the ''Tribunal''), Shivpuri in Claim case No.44/2005, on the point of inadequacy of the compensation, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2.

The appellant has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.22,32,000/- on account of disability, which is sustained in an accident took place on 29.7.2004. According to claimant i.e. appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, needs to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts / evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so, to what extent ?

3.

It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of claimant by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimant''s favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross appeal or cross objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was 40 years of age and was agricuturist at the time of accident. It is submitted that the appellant sustained fracture of hip bone, femer bone and also tibia and fibula bone in the left leg. It is submitted that the appellant was hospitalised at Choithram Hospital & Research Centre, Indore for about two months, where the appellant was operated. Due to these injuries, he sustained permanent disability and is unable to work at his field. It is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,35,000/-, break up of which is as under:

S.No. Amount Awarded Heads

1 50000=00 Towards permanent disability

2 50000=00 Towards medical expenses

3 25000=00 Towards pain and suffering

4 10000=00 Towards special diet

135000=00 Total Compensation

5.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, the amount awarded by Tribunal towards compensation is on lower side.

6.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurance company contends in support of the finding of the Claims Tribunal and submits that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable, therefore, interference by this Court for enhancement of the compensation is not warranted.

7.

After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the pleadings and evidence adduced on the issue of injuries sustained by the appellant, it appears that the appellant sustained fractures in the body, like, femer bone, left hip bone and tibia and fibula bone of left leg, by which 40% disability was observed by the District Medical Board, Shivpuri. The appellant was hospitalised for about two months in various hospitals including S.M.Hospital & Research Centre, Gwalior and Choithram Hospital & Research Centre, Indore where his surgery was done. Looking to the nature of injuries and on account of medical expenses, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is looking to be lower side. On number of heads no amount has been awarded. Hence, it will be proper to enhance the compensation amount. The appellant is entitled for the following amounts:

S.No. Amount Awarded Heads

1 1,50,000=00 Towards permanent disability

2 84,000=00 Towards medical expenses

3 30,000=00 Towards pain and suffering

4 5,000=00 Towards special diet

5 6,000=00 Towards transportation expenses

6 10,000=00 Towards expenses incurred on attenders

7 15,000=00 Towards loss of income

3,00,000=00 Total Compensation

8.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. The appellant is held entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal making the total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the realisation. The said amount be paid within a period of sixty days from the date of the order passed by this Court.

9.

In the facts of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.