Mohammad Imran Khan v. Karamveer Singh
AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 1323 of 2016 Mohammad Imran Khan, son of late Ahmad Raja Khan, aged about 36 years, R/o. Infront of Masjid, Subhash Nagar, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) ---- Appellant/claimant
Versus
1. Karamveer Singh, son of Keval Lal Singh, R/o. Sadak No.14, LIG-12, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) (Driver of Vehicle No. C.G.10, F-6903)
2. Ashok Mehara, son of late Pyare Lal, aged about 55 years, Shop No. K-4/16, Sector-11, Zone Fish Market, Kursipar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.).
(Owner of Vehicle No. C.G. 10, F-6903)
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Address G.E. Road, Power House Bhilai, through : Branch Office, Akash Ganga, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) (Insurer of Vehicle No. C.G. 10, F-6903 ---- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Qamrul Aziz, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya Judgment on Board 05.03.2019 01.
This appeal is by the claimant against the award dated 07.05.2016 passed by Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No.86/2015 awarding total
compensation of Rs.2,47,700/- with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of application till realization, fastening liability on the non-applicants jointly and severely.
02. Facts of the case leading to filing of the claim petition is that in the intervening night of 5/6-02-2015 at about 12.30 pm, the appellant/injured along with his relatives was coming from Raipur to his residence at Durg by his car bearing registration No. CG-04, DB-9933 and when they reached near Nehru Nagar Square, respondent No. 1, while driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-10, F-6903, rashly and negligently, dashed the car, which was driven by the appellant/injured, as a result of which, he sustained grievous head injuries and got fractured. The claimant/injured suffered permanent disability to the extent of 12%. The offending vehicle is owned by Non-applicant No. 2 and insured with non-applicant No. 3.
03.
On claim petition being filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned above.
04.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/injured submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant as Rs. 5,000/- per month, which appears to be on lower side, therefore, it should be enhanced suitably. He also submits that amount of compensation awarded on the other heads are also
appears to be lower side, which deserves to be enhanced suitably. 05.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has rightly considered the income, medical expenses and other miscellaneous expenses incurred by the claimant and awarded sufficient amount which needs no interference by this Court however, he submits that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded 50% towards future prospect to the claimant whereas considering the age of the claimant i.e. 36 years, the nature of his job in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prany Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% towards future prospect as such the award needs to be modified to the above extent.
06. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned award including record of the Claims Tribunal.
07.
No counter appeal is filed by the Insurance Company as submitted by learned counsel for both the parties. 08.
It is undisputed fact that the liability to pay compensation upon the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severely and no counter appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. According to the Disability Certificate (Ex. P/18) issued by Dr. Akhilesh Yadav (AW3), the claimant has sustained permanent
disability to the extent of 12% assessed by the Tribunal is just & proper. Though, the claimant has pleaded that the claimant was earning Rs.59,000/- per month as Regional Manager at Sequent Scientific Ltd. India veterinary Company, however, no evidence in support thereof has been adduced by him. In these circumstances, his monthly income can safely taken as Rs.5,500/- per month as notional basis prevalent at the relevant time. Further, considering the age of the injured i.e. 36 years, the claimant is also entitled for 40% addition to his annual income towards future prospect. Thus, considering the age of the claimant, the dependency, the nature of his job and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimant is held entitled for compensation in the following manner:
Sl.
No.
Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01.
Income of the claimant @ Rs.5,500/- per month.
Rs 66,000/- per annum 02.
40% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects.
Rs. 66,000+26,400= Rs. 92,400/- 03.
Loss of earning @ 12% Rs. 11088 04.
Multiplier of 15 to be applied Rs. 1,66,320/- 05.
Towards Medical expenses Rs.32,200 (as applied by the Tribunal) 06.
Towards pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- (as applied by the Tribunal) 07.
Towards special diet Rs.5,000/- (as applied
by the Tribunal) 08.
Towards transportation Rs.10,000/- (as applied by the Tribunal) 09.
For attendant Rs.13,500/- (as awarded by the Tribunal) 10.
Total other expenses Rs.5,000/- (as awarded by the Tribunal) 11.
Towards future treatment Rs. 5,000/- 12.
Total compensation Rs. 2,57,020/- Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.2,47,700/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimant is held entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 9,320/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. 09.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent.
Sd/- (Gautam Chourdiya Judge amita