Karamjit Singh @ Manga Singh v. Gendram Sahu

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Miscellaneous Appeal (Civil) No. 1714 2018 • Karamjit Singh @ Manga Singh, S/o Late Banta Singh, A/A 35 years, R/o Village & Post Baliya, Police Station Dhuri, District Sangrur (Punjab), Present Address- Changorabhata, Police Station D.D. Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Appellant/Claimant

Versus

1. Gendram Sahu, S/o Ramshvarup Sahu, R/o Village Bhasera, Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (C.G.) (Driver of Tractor & Trolley/Non-applicant No.1)

2. Dharmendra Sen, S/o Dinanath Sen, R/o Village Bhasera, Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (C.G.) (Owner of Tractor & Trolley/Non-applicant No.2) (Although he is owner but wrongly mentioned as Driver in cause-title)

3. L & T (Larsen & Tubro), Through Officer Incharge/Competent Officer, 1st Floor Mazenine Floor Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of Tractor & Trolley/Non-applicant No.3) ---- Respondents/Non-applicants For Appellant :

Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2 :

None For Respondent No. 3 :

Shri Rohitashava Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya, J Judgment on Board 23.01.2019 1.

The present is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 preferred by the Claimant/Appellant, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by Fourth Additional Tribunal, Raipur to First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) vide award dated 18.05.2018 passed in Claim Case No. 55 of 2016.

2.

The claimant/Appellant claimed compensation of Rs.51,40,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for injury sustained by him in the motor accident.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that on the date of accident i.e. 01.06.2015 at about 08:00 p.m. when the Claimant/Appellant was going by his motorcycle, Respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No.

CG-04/HV/4765 attached with Trolley bearing registration No. CG-04/HW/0921, owned by Respondent No.2 and insured with Respondent No.3, driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle near Darripara bridge. Due to the said accident, Karamjeet Singh sustained grievous injuries on head, knee of his right leg, right wrist and bones of his right leg and right shoulder were fractured.

4.

The learned Tribunal, in the impugned award, has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,35,560- to Appellant/Claimant with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization and has fastened liability on the Respondents jointly and severally.

5.

Learned counsel for the Appellant/Claimant submits that due to accident, right leg of the Appellant was operated by the Doctor and an iron rod was fitted. He also submits that at the time of accident, the Claimant was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as driver and also doing the work of Foreman (Harvester Operator), but the Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the Claimant as Rs.6,000/-. He further submits that the Claimant had suffered 66% permanent disability as per Ex.-P/110 but the Tribunal has considered only 20% functional disability of the Claimant.

6.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3/Insurance Company supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matters has rightly awarded compensation which needs no interference by this Court 7.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8.

So far as argument relating to income of the Appellant/Claimant is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence available on record and evidence adduced by Appellant/Claimant that he was driver and also doing the work of Foreman (Harvester Operator), the minimum

wages of the skilled labour is Rs.6,200/- per month at the relevant time, this Court is of the opinion that the income considered by the learned Tribunal as Rs.6,000/- per month is on lower side and it can safely be taken as Rs.6,200/- per month. 9.

As regards the assessment of functional disability of the Claimant/Appellant to the extent of 20% by the Tribunal, as per Ex.-P/110, a certificate of permanent disability issued by the by Doctor G.S. Bachu (AW-2), the Appellant had suffered 66% permanent disability in relation to right lower limb and not in relation to the whole body. AW-2 states in para-4 that disability certificate was issued by him on the basis of Instruction and directions given in Manual of Orthopedic which was published by the Govt. of India in Gazette and he also states that disability of the Appellant is in permanent nature which would not be cured in future. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court held that the Appellant had suffered 35% functional disability in relation to right lower limb. 10.

On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that the Claimant/Appellant is entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl.No.

Head Calculation Income of the injuredAppellant/Claimant Rs.6,200/- per month i.e.

Rs.74,400/- per annum Loss due to 35% permanent disability Rs.26,040/- Multiplier of 16 applied Rs.26,040/- x 16 = Rs.4,16,640/- For medical bill during treatment Rs.1,65,160/- (as awarded by the Tribunal) For pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- (as awarded by the Tribunal at para-37 of impugned award) For special diet Rs.15,000/- (as awarded by the Tribunal at para-37 of impugned award) For conveyance & attendant Rs.15,000/- (as awarded by the Tribunal at para-37 of impugned award) Total Rs.6,36,800/-

Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.4,35,560/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the Claimant is held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.2,01,240/-.

11.

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent that the Claimant/Appellant shall be entitled to a total enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,01,240/- with further direction of payment of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12.

No order as to costs.

Sd/- (Gautam Chourdiya) Judge vatti