Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raj Kishore vs Shri Ram Agrawal on 10 September, 1996
Equivalent citations: I(1997)ACC393, 1996ACJ1351
JUDGMENT N.P. Singh, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ashok Lalwani for the appellant and Mr. R.P. Agrawal for respondent No. 3.
2. This appeal arises out of order dated 4.1.1996 passed by the First Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Katni, in Claim Case No. 29 of 1995, rejecting the application of appellant-claimant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant-claimant was proceeding from Katni to Dehitpur on 24.5.1995 on a scooter bearing registration No. MPA 3986 as a pillion rider. The scooter was being driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the scooter fell into a ditch and the claimant-appellant sustained serious injuries on his person. He also sustained fracture of the left elbow bone, causing permanent disability. The claimant preferred claim case under Section 166 of the Act and also moved an application under Section 140 of the Act for grant of interim compensation on the ground of his permanent disability. The Claims Tribunal, on consideration of the documents adduced by the claimant, disallowed interim compensation.
4. Mr. Ashok Lalwani, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that the Claims Tribunal misread the X-ray report in holding that the fracture was caused on the head of the appellant, whereas the report shows that the fracture was on the left elbow. He further contended that for grant of interim compensation, no enquiry whatsoever is necessary as to the cause of accident or the nature of injury received by the claimant. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. Mr. R.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel for National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3, has contended that for grant of interim compensation, the claimant must make out a prima facie case that there was a motor accident and he received injuries in that accident. In this case, the accident is alleged to have taken place on 24.5.1995, but the complainant lodged no report with the police about the accident nor he was admitted or examined in any Government hospital. The first information report was lodged for the first time on 8.6.1995 and he got himself examined on 28.8.1995 and the nature of injury sustained is hair-line fracture on the left side of the head, which does not come within the definition of permanent disability, as defined in Section 142 of the Act.
6. The contention of Mr. Agrawal is well founded. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for grant of interim compensation to the claimants in case of death or permanent disablement of any person on account of an accident out of the use of the motor vehicle. Section 142 of the Act defines permanent disablement, which means permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear; or privation of any member or joint and destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint; or permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Hair-line fracture does not come within the definition of permanent disability.
7. Thus, the Claims Tribunal has rightly declined to grant interim compensation to the appellant. There is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.