Virender Singh @ Veeru vs Parmod Kumar Gupta

,

Lok Pal Singh, J.",

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.04.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Ist F.T.C., Nainital in M.A.C.",

No.61 of 2006, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and has granted a sum of Rs. 1,13,000/-as compensation to the",

claimant/injured against the National Insurance Company Ltd. along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the,

date of its realization.,

Brief facts of the case are that on 15.12.2005 Virendra Singh @ Veeru (claimant/injured) was going from Gandhinagar Bindukhatta towards,

Pantnagar on his cycle very slowly and cautiously and on his left side. When the claimant/injured reached Nagla crossing at about 12:45 pm, a truck",

bearing no.UP-25/T/5628, being driver by its driver very rashly and negligently, and coming from Lalkuan towards Kichha side, dashed the",

claimant/injured resulting which the claimant along with his cycle fell down. His left arm got crushed and he fainted on spot. Immediately after the said,

incident, the claimant/injured was brought to the Hospital for treatment where he was admitted. On 08.01.2006, he was referred to Dr. Susheela",

Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani where he remained admitted till 08.02.2006. Amputation of left arm of the injured was done on 15.12.2005. The",

claimant/injured contended that he was a healthy and hard working person and due to amputation of his left arm and the injuries sustained by him in,

the accident, he is not able to do his work now. With these averments, claimant/injured filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as",

compensation along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of actual payment.,

Opposite party no.1, owner of the offending vehicle, contested the case and filed his written statement. In the written statement, he admitted the",

accident but denied rest of the averments made in the claim petition due to lack of information. He further stated that the driver was having valid,

driving license on the relevant date and time and that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Opposite party no.3, driver of the offending vehicle, also filed his written statement. He contended that on the relevant date and time, he was",

possessing valid and effective driving license. He was not driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. According to him, said accident occurred due to",

fault of injured.,

Opposite party no.2, Insurance Company, also filed its written statement and contended that the claim petition is not maintainable as information",

was not furnished to it as per section 158(6) and 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further alleged that the alleged accident had taken place due,

to own negligence of the claimant, therefore, claimant is not entitled for any compensation and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.",

On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:",

i) Whether on 15.12.2005 due to rash and negligent driving by driver of truck no.UP-25/T/5628 the accident took place in which the claimant Virendra,

Singh @ Veeru sustained injuries?,

ii) What amount of compensation the claimant is entitled for in respect of the injuries?,

iii) Whether opposite party no.2 is not liable to pay compensation, as contended in written statement?",

iv) To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimant is entitled for?",

Thereafter, parties led their oral and documentary evidence. On behalf of claimant, PW1 Birendra Singh @ Beeru and PW2 Balwant Singh were",

examined. No evidence was led by the opposite party.,

After hearing the parties and upon perusal of entire evidence, learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award, as above.",

Neither the owner of the offending vehicle nor the National Insurance Company Ltd. has filed the appeal against the findings recorded by the,

Tribunal in judgment and award dated 30.04.2009. The claimant/injured has filed the present appeal, challenging the impugned judgment and award,",

for enhancement of compensation. Thus, the sole controversy before this Court is whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is on lower side",

in the facts and circumstances of the case.,

The Tribunal has dealt with this aspect in issue no.2 and has recorded finding that due to the accident the claimant/injured has suffered 90%,

permanent disability and his left arm was amputated from shoulder. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/-towards medical expenses, Rs.50,000/-",

towards loss of beauty, Rs.8,000/- towards two months’ salary and Rs.5,000/- towards mental pain and agony and, under all heads, the Tribunal",

has granted Rs. 1,13,000/- to the claimant/injured.",

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claimant/injured has suffered permanent disability of 90% and his left arm was amputated,

from shoulder, but the Tribunal while determining compensation, has not taken into account this fact and has not awarded a single penny towards loss",

of future earning. To buttress his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basappa",

vs. T. Ramesh and another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 789.,

Para-14 of the said judgment is relevant which is extracted hereunder:,

“14. For the purposes of calculating the compensation, the formula contained in Note (5) of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988",

is to be applied which is as under:,

“5. Disability in non-fatal accidents.- The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising out of non-fatal,

accidents:,

Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty-two weeks. PLUS either of the following-",

Head,Amount

Annual loss of dependency,"8,74,800

Medical Expenses,"50,000

Mental pain and agony,"50,000

TOTAL,"9,74,800