Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kailash vs Vasir Ahmad & Ors on 15 July, 2010
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1441/1999 (Madho Ram VS. Vasir Ahmad & ors.) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1432/1999 (Kailash VS. Vasir Ahmad & ors.) Dated : 15.07.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Sandeep Mathur for the appellants. Mr. BC Rawat} Mr. Virendra Agarwal} for respondent No.3. ***
Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of impugned judgment and award dated 27th March, 1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa and questions involved in both the appeals are similar; they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Being dissatisfied, both the appellants have preferred these appeals for the enhancement of quantum of compensation.
3. Background facts, in a nut shell, are thus:
That on 5th December, 1997 at about 8-9 AM the appellants Kailash, Madhoram and Jagdish were going by Tractor bearing registration No.PJQ-6035 from village Namolav to Kairwal Mod. The Tractor was being driven by injured Madhoram at a moderate speed in its right direction. It is alleged that on National Highway No.11 one Truck bearing registration No.UP-80P-9954 being driven by Bashir Ahmed rashly, negligently and at a fast speed suddenly emerged from the direction of Dausa and hit the Tractor from its back resulting into injuries to all those persons who were sitting on Tractor. This accident caused damage to Tractor also. The appellant Kailash got both his legs crushed and sustained many more injuries. Similarly, the appellant Madhoram also sustained numerous injuries.
4. Learned Tribunal after completion of trial, decreed an amount of Rs.85,000/- in favour of the appellant Madhoram and an amount of Rs.4,26,000/- in favour of the appellant Kailash.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment.
Civil Misc. Appeal No.1441/1999 (Madho Ram VS. Vaseer Ahmed & Ors.)
6. Learned counsel for the appellant Madhoram canvassed that the appellant Madhoram was of the age of 33 years and earning Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of accident. He sustained injuries on his legs, hands and other parts of the body. He also incurred Rs.30,000/- on his treatment and has produced medical bills in support thereof. Apart this, he sustained 14.35% permanent partial disability. The appellant examined himself to support his case and number of medicine vouchers and other relevant papers but the learned Tribunal sans considering all these aspects, decreed a lump-sum amount of Rs.85,000/- in his favour. This amount of compensation, looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the injured, seems to be abysmally low and the same deserves to be enhanced.
7. E-converso, the learned counsel for the Insurance Co. Mr. Virendra Agarwal defended the impugned judgment and stated the same to be just and proper. He further contended that the appellant did not produce any evidence with regard to his income. He is found to have sustained 14.35% permanent partial disability but the injuries are not of such nature which may hinder his everyday routine working and lessen his efficiency. Thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the injured Madho Ram sustained fracture on his left ankle. The Medical Board after his examination, opined that he has developed 14.35% permanent partial disability. It seems that the Medical Board must have calculated the percentage of disability after applying some medical formula. Medical Board, of course, has mentioned in certificate that the injured developed 14.35% permanent partial disability but has not given a definite opinion that this disability has lessened his working efficiency nor has opined that now onwards, he shall be able to earn less income. There appears to be no ground to dispute the percentage of permanent partial disability but I am of the definite opinion that a fracture on an ankle which gets cured, does not lessen the working efficiency of a person unless some complication in callus formation of bone develops. The learned Tribunal having critically analyzed the evidence, is found to have properly appreciated the entire material available on record. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards Medical Bills and other acts, Rs.15,000/- towards trauma, physical pain etc. and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that if we apply the multiplier in accordance with the guidelines given in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, the loss of income comes to Rs.52,000/- in the instant case. The learned Tribunal is found to have awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income. Thus, much of difference of amount is not found to be there. The learned Tribunal has already considered all the aspects and rightly awarded the amount of Rs.85,000/- as compensation to the injured which, seems to be perfectly just and apt with which I fully concur. There is nothing on record which may lead me to disturb the impugned award.
9. In view of the above, the impugned award warrants no intervention and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Civil Misc. Appeal No.1432/1999 (Kailash VS. Vaseer Ahmed & Ors.)
10. In this case, the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs.4,26,000/- in favour of injured Kailash. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that both the legs of the injured Kailash got completely crushed in the said accident and he is found to have sustained 65% permanent partial disability. The appellant was only 30 years of age at the time of accident. He has wife and five children, thus, a large family to support. There is none adult in the family, who could arrange livelihood for them. The appellant is unable to sit, stand, walk and perform any work since the date of accident. He has been under treatment. His both legs have become useless. He always needs the assistance of two attendants. Looking to the injuries, he is likely to remain under treatment in future also. His body has turned into a living corpse due to said accident. In spite of all these factors, the learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.4,26,000/- to him, which undeniably needs to be enhanced.
11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Co. has defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and proper. He contended that the award was passed by the learned Tribunal in March, 1999 and the appeal is being heard in the year 2010. Today, looking to the nature of injuries, the quantum of compensation seems to be low but at the time when the claim petition was adjudicated, the quantum of compensation was reasonably high. After the year 1999, price index has alarmingly escalated, hence, in the light of escalated price index, the amount of award seems to be inadequate, but otherwise it is not so.
12. Having ruminated over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully scanned the Medical Bills, prescriptions of Doctors, discharge ticket of Sawai Man Singh Hospital, photographs of the injured and disability certificate, it is noticed that the injured incurred approximately Rupees one lac on his treatment of his injuries. Undeniably and undisputably, the appellant shall require further treatment of his legs in future. It also seems that he will need medical care throughout his life, as both his legs are crushed in an accident. The possibility of further complications in the lower limbs in future also cannot be ignored. Since the price index has been escalating at a fast pace, he would admittedly require more funds to incur on his treatment. He has suffered physical pain and trauma throughout over the years and is likely to suffer in future too. Hence, keeping in view, all these aspects, I am of the opinion that the amount of Rupees one lac awarded towards special compensation and amount towards his physical pain, trauma and permanent partial disability, seems to be abysmally low.
13. The Medical Board comprising of three Doctors of S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur examined the appellant Kailash and issued a certificate Ex.17 which reads thus:
Crush injury of left and right (both) knee and right ankle with fracture medial mellidus, restriction of knee and ankle movements with 62% permanent disability in lower limbs The Medical Board further observed that the injured will have difficulty in squatting and sitting cross legged.
14. The appellant submitted Medical Bills from Ex.24 to Ex. 195 before the Tribunal. The number of Medical Bills itself evinces that the injured underwent a long treatment and spent huge amount on his treatment. Sans permanent assistance of one attendant, he cannot move from one place to another place. Hence, keeping in view all these factors, I feel inclined to raise the amount from Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) to Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs) as special compensation and from Rs.1,10,000/- to Rs.1,60,000/- towards his physical pain, trauma and facing difficulty in performing day to day activities and discharging social obligations in future on account of 62% permanent disability.
15. In the ultimate analysis, the appellant Kailash Meena shall be entitled to claim Rs.5,76,000/-(Rs. Five lacs seventy six thousand) as compensation instead of Rs.4,26,000/- from the respondent.
16. For the reasons stated above, the Civil Misc. Appeal No.1441/1999 (Madho Ram VS. Vaseer Ahmed & Ors.) being bereft of merit stands dismissed and the Civil Misc. Appeal No.1432/1999 (Kailash VS. Vaseer Ahmed & Ors.) is allowed.
17. The appellant Kailash is held entitled to claim Rs.5,76,000/- as compensation instead of Rs.4,26,000/-. Thus, the total amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.4,26,000/- to Rs.5,76,000/-. The appellant-Kailash shall also be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the claim petition, till it is actually realized. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged.
18. The impugned award in respect of appellant-Kailash stands modified as indicated hereinabove.
19. There shall be no order as to costs.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg