^i i!sss&, 1 i^."^' '"'StasS" wy /. HIGH COURT OP CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'Me Shti Justlce R. L. Jhanwar, aiisceUaaepus Appeal No.283/2003 APPELLANT/ (Clalxaaatt Satrughan aged 42 years, s/o Kapilal Sahu, residence of vTUage Chluttour Tahasfl Gurur District Dui^ RESPONDENTS Versus 1. Maniram aged 42 years, s/o Sadashiv Dhru, resident of Bhaaupratappur, Distnct Kanker 2. Babulal a^ed. 50 years, s/o Shreelal Shanna, resident of village Bande near Bus Stand, District Kanker. 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Mobin Malial, G.E. Road, Raipur APPEAL UNDER SBCTIOK 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLBS ACT Appearaace: Shri G.S. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate wifh Ms. Viaa Nau-, counsel for fhe appeUant. Shri Raj Awasthy, counsel tbr respondent No.3. None for respondents No. 1 & 2 fhough served. ORAL ORDBR (16.07.3010) R.L. .Etianwai, J. 1. The appeUant/claimaat has ffled tbis appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vebicles Act for eiihaucement of the amount of compensation, awarded ia Claun Case No.451/2002 by the Additional Motor Accident CIaims .^7 f € -s y 'yj /:' •liffl'BBg: Tnbuiial, Dhauitari, Distnct Dhaoitari (CG) (ia short the Tribunal) vide award dated 23rd December, 2002. 2. The appeUaat/claimaut-Sata-ughau filed a claim petition under Sectioa 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, claimiag compensation of Rs.10,45,000/- on account of permaaent disability due to the iiiotor accident took placeon 11.1.2001. 3. The brief facts necessaiy for disposal of fhis appeal are fhat the appeUant/claimant-Satrughan was going for nature's caU at about 7.30 am on 11.1.2001 in. vill^e Chhittour, at that tiine, respondent No.l-Maairam. was driving Truck No. MKS-8447 in rash and negUgent mianner aud dashed ttie appeUant/claunant, diie to which, he received grievous iujuries on his back, hands aad legs. He also got fracture ofliis right hand. He was admitted to Masihi Hospital, Dhamtari from 11.1.2001 to 15.1.2001. Due to the fi-acture, he got penuauent disabUily. The appellant/ claunant was workiug as a purcliaser and seUer of paddy aad used to eara Rs.5,000/- to 7,000/- per inonfh. Due to pennanent disabflity in. his right hand, he was uiiable to work. Respondent No.2 is the owner of fhe Truck and respondent No.3 is the Insurer of fhe Truck. 4. The respondents have denied all fhe facts in tiieir writtea statenient. They have stated fhat the accident nas occunied due to negUgency of the claimaat. Respondent No.3 has stated that fhe driver was not haviag valid licence at the time ofaccident, 5. After evaluatiag the evidence available on record and heariag fh.e parties, leanied Claims Tribunal has awarded a suin of Rs.35,235/- as total amount of the claim., against wbich, fhis appeal has been filed by fhe " • claicaaiit/ appeUaat. 1'{>. 6. Leamed couasel for the appellant/claimant argued fhat leamed Clamis Tnbunal has en-ed ia considenag fhe pennauent disabUity as 20%, whereas, it sbould have been considered as 40%. He argued fhat fhe appeUant has produced the medical certificate for permauent disabflity vide Ex. P/7. He also argued fhat iiiultiplier of 15 should have been adopted by fhe Tribuaal, wbereas, the Tnbunal has adopted inultiplier of 8. The Tribuual has also not given total medical expenses; ffaerefore, fhe compensation awarded by fhe Claiins Tnbunal is not just aud proper. He argued the Tnbuaal ought to have awarded the coiupensation. on the basis of notional uicome. 7. Respondents No. 1 and 2 Driver and Owner have not appeared before the Tribunal, 8. Leamed counsel for respondent No.3 - National Insurance Coinpaay argued that inedical certificate produced by the appellaat/clauaaat for penaanent disabflity is not ui accordance with law because it has not beea got approved by fhe Medical Board. He ai^ued that the Tribunal has righffy assessed peraianent disabflity as 20% and thereby has righUy awarded the conipensation to fhe appellaat/claimant; therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. 9. I have heard leamed couiisel for fhe parties at length have also perused the record of the Claims Tribunal. 10. The aiedical certificate Ex. P/7, issued by Dr. V.K. Pandey, A.W.2, has specified pennanent disabUily as 40%, but fhe Tnbunal has considered fhe pennauent disabUity as 201?6. aad on fhe basis of 20% permaaent disabUily, award has been passed by the Tribunal, whereas, it should have beeu passed on fhe basis 40% diisabUily, -—-——^—- 11. Satrughan A.W.l - claimaut has stated that while he was going to attend the catl of nature on 11.1.2001 at about 7.30 am, respondent No.l, who was driviug the vehicle in a rash and negligent inanner, dashed the Truck against him, due to which he got permanent disabUity in his r^ht haad. On this point no evidence has been produced by the respondents, therefore, the Tribunal has reached to fhe finding fhat ftie Truck was driven in a i-ash and negligent inanner, causing permanent disability to tiie claimaat/appeUant 12. So far as the iacouie is concemed, the claunaiit/appeUaat bas stated fhat he was eaming Rs.5,000/- to 7,0001- per monfh fhrough fh.e business of purchasiug and selUng and he was eaming Rs.2,00,000/- per year from his agricultural field, but ia this regard, no evidence has been produced by fhe appeUaD.t/clamiant. Though there was no clear and cogent eviden.cc regarding fhe incoDie of fhe appeUaat/claimaat as pleaded aforenientioned by Tiim, fherefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the uiconie of the appellaat/claunaat on the basis of notional tuconie, 13. According to Section 163-A offhe Motor Vehicles Act, in fhe year 1994, the notional inconie was considered to be Rs.15,000/- per year. The incident has taken place ia the year 2001, therefore, fhe notional iacoine as Rs.24,000/- ought to have been considered by fhe Tribunal. Considering pennauent disabiUty upto 40% due to the accident, loss of incoine as Rs.9600/- per vear should hgve beeii assessed. The Tribunal has appUed inultipUer of 8. The age of the appeUant/claimant was 40 years. No evidence has been produced by the respondents to disbeUeve the age offhe ^^B^^t-g^S^^^^feK^ "^- '/, claauant/appeUant, fherefore, by considering the age as 40 years, laultipUer of 12 ought to have been applied. By applyiug multiplier of 12, ftie incorue comes to Rs.1,15,200/-. The Tribunal Iias considered fhe incoine of fhe appeUant/claunant as Rs.29,952/-. For calculation, it shoiild be rounded off as Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal has ab-eady awarded Rs.30,000/- for loss of future iucoine, fherefore, by deducting Rs.30,000/- fi-om Rs.1,15,200/- itcomes Rs.85,200/-. 14. Therefore, on the basis of above calculation, Tribzinal has erred iu law m awardiug Rs.35,235/- in total, whereas, the Tribunal ouglit to have awarded Rs.1,15,200/-/-. Therefore, the appeUao.t/cIaimaut is entifled to get Rs.85,200/- m addition to Rs.35,235; - as fhe eiihauced acaount of coinpensation on account of motor accident aad permanent disabUily. 15. Leamed couusel for the parties subinitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between flie parties about the period for wbich fhe claimant is entiUed to receive interest on the enliauced ainount of compensation, fhe amoiuit of compen.sation may be quauti&ed in this appeal itself. 16, The accident iu. this preseat case, whereia iujured - Sata-ughan got 40 % permanent disabUily in the year 2001. The clauns petition has been ffled by fhe claiinant iu the year 2001, to which the Tribunal has disposed of on 23.12.2002, fhereafter, fhis appeal has Keen filed by fhe appellant on 21.3.2003. Considering aU. the factors iucludiag delay ia disposal to tlus appeal, iriterest Rs.480(T/- is calculated on fhe said amount. In fhis way, a total suia of Rs.90,000/- is awarded to fhe appeUaat/claimant as the enhaaced amount of , coinpensation. ————— 17. Respondent No.S-National Insuiaace Company shatl pay Rs.90,000/- to the appeUan.t/claunan.t wifhiu 3 Kioafh.s froin today, faUiag which, iaterest @ 6% p.a. shaU be charged pn fhe said amount. 18. The appeal is partly aUowed. There shall be no orders as to the costs. -_ Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^/"';