AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Mandal counsel for the appellant and Sri D.S. Patni counsel for the respondent No. 1.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.8.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Udham Singh Nagar.
Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant has filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Udham Singh Nagar for the grant of compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on 9.7.2003 at 12.15 AM near Gurunanak Roller Flour Mills. According to the claimant he was coming by his scooter from his college when he reached near Gurnanak Flour Mill, truck No. UA 06A-0128 which was being driven rashly and negligently dashed the scooter of the claimant due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident.
The opposite party no. 1 Sher Singh Koranga did not contest the claim petition.
The opposite party No. 2 the United India Insurance Co. has stated in its written statement that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.
On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the Claims Tribunal:
Whether the claimant sustained grievous injuries in an accident on 27.8.2003 at 12.15 PM at Gurunanak flour Mill, Darau Mode due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. UA 06-A-0128 who dashed the scooter of the claimant?
To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled?
Any other relief?
The claimant examined P.W. 1 Pradeep Kumar Pandey, P.W. 2 Omkar Sharma and P.W. 3 Mohd. Ushman and filed copy of F.I.R. medical certificate, income certificate, registration certificate, fitness certificate, insurance cover note and medical bills. He has also filed handicap certificate.
The insurance company has filed insurance cover note and proposal of Lal Singh.
On the basis of evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal has held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. The claimant sustained injuries in the accident and his left leg was amputated.
So far as the compensation is concerned the Claims Tribunal has held that the claimant was 32 years of age. He was posted as a teacher in Primary School and was getting Rs. 4,875/- as monthly salary. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for the expenses incurred in the treatment, Rs. 10,000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs. 5,000/- for nutritious diet, Rs. 10,000/- for discomfort and Rs. 1,500/- for artificial leg. As such the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 66,500/- along with 7% interest to the claimant.
Feeling aggrieved the present appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded.
So far as the earning of the deceased is concerned, he has submitted that the is posted as a teacher in Government school He has filed the certificate of salary issued by Assistant Basic Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar. In that certificate basic salary of the claimant has been shown to be Rs. 4,875/- per month. No Dearness allowance and other allowances have been shown in the certificate. If the basic salary of a Government servant is Rs. 4,875/- certainly is gross salary would be more than Rs. 10,000/- per month but the Claims Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the case.
Further the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- for permanent disability. Disability certificate paper No. 445 shows that left leg of the claimant below the knee has been amputated and the Medical Board has assessed 60% permanent disability. Thus the claimant is entitled to get compensation on account of permanent disability. No norms have been prescribed under the Motor Vehicle Act for assessment of compensation for permanent disability in cases of accident due to rash and negligent driving.
It is an established principle of law that if a claimant has not specifically pleaded for the grant of certain amount of compensation, even then the Tribunal itself is statutorily bound to pay just compensation and for that it has to examine facts, evidence and law, as held by the Apex Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, . The Apex Court has observed as under:
Firstly, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act") there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is - it should be "just" compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the MV Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Under the proviso to Sub-section (1), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as the claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for compensation. The other important part of the said section is Sub-section (4) which provides that "the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under Subsection (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act". Hence, the Claims Tribunal in an appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed.
The Apex Court in Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Northern India Transport Insurance Co., has held as under:
u/s 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the tribunal is required to fix such compensation which appears to it to be just. The power given to the tribunal in the matter of fixing compensation under that provision is wide. Even if we assume (we do not propose to decide that question in this case) that compensation under that provision has to be fixed on the same basis as is required to be done under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (Act 13 of 1855), the pecuniary loss to the aggrieved party would depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately but must necessarily be an estimate or even partly a conjecture.
In the case of permanent disability the compensation can be assessed by applying the formula prescribed under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, but the Claims Tribunal has only awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the claimant for future inconvenience,, From the disability certificate filed on record by the claimant, it is quite clear that left leg of the claimant has been amputated below the knee, thus the claimant is entitled to get compensation for permanent disability. To work out compensation for such a disability social and financial status of the claimant should be kept in mind. The Claims Tribunal is, therefore, directed to assess compensation for permanent disability, which should not be less, then if the claim was made under Workmen''s Compensation Act.
In view of above, appeal is allowed. Judgment and award dated 31.8.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar is set aside. The case is remanded to the Claims Tribunal concerned for a fresh decision and assessing the compensation for permanent disability in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law.
However, compensation, if any, paid to the claimant in compliance of the award shall not be refunded from the claimant.
There will be no order as to costs.