Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Khuman Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 29 August, 2000

Equivalent citations: (2001)IILLJ332MP, 2001 A I H C 1913, (2001) 2 LABLJ 332, (2001) 2 LAB LN 1101, (2001) 1 MPLJ 354

Author: A.K. Mishra

Bench: A.K. Mishra

JUDGMENT
 

Bhawani Singh, C.J.  
 

1. These two cases are proposed to be decided by this order since they arise out of the same accident but different awards.

2. The claimants were labourers of Irrigation Department (respondent No. 1). On the date of accident, which took place on December 29, 1992, they were deployed with Dumper No. CPZ 7867. The allegation is that the Dumper was being driven rashly and negligently as a result of which it overturned, resulting in injuries to the occupants which included two claimants. Khuman Singh sustained fracture of left thigh. Khuman Singh was 25 years old at the time of the accident and disability is 50%. He has been awarded Rs. 38,500/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Puranlal was 30 years old at the time of accident. He sustained fracture of thigh and bone injury in left foot. Disability is 45%. He has been awarded Rs. 56,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Both the claimants arc not satisfied with the Award. Therefore, they have challenged the award through these appeals.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case.

4. Contention of Shri S.L. Kochar, learned counsel for the appellants is that the compensation has not been assessed properly. The determination of compensation has to be done in accordance with the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 read with principles of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

5. With this background, we proceed to determine the compensation of the two claimants. Taking into consideration Rs. 900/- as monthly income of Khuman Singh and the extent of injury, we are of the opinion that compensation of Rs. 64,800/- should be paid to him in addition to Rs. 13,500/- for medical expenses and special diet making the total compensation to Rs. 78,300/-with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

6. In the case of Puranlal, taking into consideration disability of 45% 30 years age and monthly income of Rs. 500/-, he should be entitled to compensation of Rs. 87,480/- in addition to Rs. 26,000/-; taking the total compensation to Rs. 1,13,480/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation. It is ordered that in case the compensation is not paid within two months from today, the compensation amount shall be paid with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

7. In both the appeals, awards are modified to the extent aforesaid. Parties to bear their own cost.