Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramswaroop Sharma vs Vishnu Sharma & Anr. on 24 November, 2016
1
MA No.597/2002
(Ramswaroop Sharma v. Vishnu Sharma & Another)
24.11.2016
Shri A.K. Mangal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Harish Dixit, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent no.2-State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant-injured has filed this appeal assailing the award passed by the Court of 8th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, dated 30.01.2002 passed in Claim Case No.51/2001 on mainly two grounds namely the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on account of requirement of an assistant/attendant which the appellant will require throughout his life on account of his lower part of the body being paralyzed in the accident causing 50% disability and similarly no amount has been paid under the head of an agony or permanent disability.
Learned counsel for the State submits that since the appellant was in Government service and his service is continuing, therefore, there is no loss of income necessitating payment of compensation on account of loss of earning capacity due to 50% disability and therefore the trial Court has rightly not awarded any amount under the head of loss of earning capacity or for permanent disability.
It is not in dispute that the appellant had suffered 50% disability as has been certified by the treating doctor namely Dr. S.N. Tripathi (PW1). Dr. S.N. Tripathi has deposed that he was working as PGMO Orthopedic at Civil Hospital, Morar and had treated the claimant. There is fracture of lumber 2 and 4 and due to said fracture and compression, there was paralysis in both the legs causing permanent disability to the 2 MA No.597/2002 (Ramswaroop Sharma v. Vishnu Sharma & Another) extent of 50%. He admitted that he had issued disability certificate, which has been countersigned by the Civil Surgeon. He further accepted that the permanent disability of 50% shall be always there as due to the aforesaid injuries lower limb of the claimant had suffered paralysis. In cross-examination, he further elaborated that the injury, which has been caused to the spinal cord, cannot be compensated through any medication. This evidence of Dr. S.N. Tripathi has remained unrebutted. It has also come on record that the claimant was though working as peon, but was also selling balloons during his spare time and therefore having extra income to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month. He has also admitted that he could not attend his office for 113 days and he was not paid salary for a period of 05 months and 10 days. He had also suffered loss of extra income.
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Abdul Kalam v. C. Shrinivas Raghwan & Others as reported in 2008 ACJ 2852, where on account of injury in the spine resulting in fracture of L-1 vertebra in the vertebral column, a sum of Rs.8,10,000/- was awarded on account of permanent disability and Rs.38,400/- for future expenses on employing attendant. Accident in the said case had taken place in the year 1996 whereas in the present case, accident had taken place in the year 2001. In that case, the claimant had suffered 75% permanent disability whereas in the present case disability is 50%. Reliance has already been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of 3 MA No.597/2002 (Ramswaroop Sharma v. Vishnu Sharma & Another) Narendra Singh & Another v. Govind & Another :
2006 ACJ 2656, wherein due to injury in spine leading to paralysis of both lower limbs below waist, the injured, aged 40 skilled mason and undertaking agriculture earning, was awarded a sum of Rs.6,35,800/-. In the case of Sarwar Aalam alias Sarwar Khan v. Arun Kumar as reported in MACD 2010 (1) (MP) 308 on account of fracture of spinal cord, compensation amount was enhanced from Rs.7,87,000/- to Rs.11,41,000/-. Out of this total compensation, Rs.1.00 Lac was awarded due to fracture of L-2 Vertebra rendering the appellant helpless to perform his daily routine work without the help of attendant. Therefore, in view of this judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, it will be in fitness of things to award a sum of Rs.1.00 Lac for attendant, which the appellant shall be requiring for life long and which amount should be invested in fixed deposit so that out of the interest, the appellant may be able to maintain an attendant.
In the light of the law laid down in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi :
1980 ACJ 55 (SC), the Apex Court observed that determination of quantum must be liberal and not niggardly since law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales and also the fact that the appellant remained hospitalized for a long period and has suffered 50% disability. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. : 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has 4 MA No.597/2002 (Ramswaroop Sharma v. Vishnu Sharma & Another) discussed the entire law relating to the computation of compensation in injury cases and had awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,50,000/- in respect of the loss of amenities of life apart from the other heads in respect of the injuries resulting in paraplegia below the waist where the appellant had suffered total disability, therefore this Court deems it proper to award a sum of Rs.1.00 Lac towards pain and sufferings and another sum of Rs.1.00 Lac in respect of loss of amenities. The appellant shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.1.00 Lac towards maintaining the attendant as has been mentioned above. Therefore, the total compensation is enhanced by a sum of Rs.3.00 Lacs, which shall be payable to the appellant and out of which Rs.1.00 Lac shall be invested in the fixed deposit to maintain an attendant in future. These amounts have been awarded looking to the age of the appellant at the time of the accident and also the fact that he was deprived of leading a healthy normal life in the prime of his youth when he was only 35 years old. The enhanced amount shall be payable to the appellant within 90 days of supply of a certified copy by the respondents in a joint and several manner. Costs of the appeal is quantified at Rs.5,000/-.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Vivek Agarwal)
meh/ Judge