'i-f" .-^''"< DivlsionBencti INTHEHlGHCOURTOFJUraeATUREATBlLAS!PCR:C.G. M.A. No, ffl^ Of2005 A^7 . -. MISGELLANEQU^AI»PE^L,BNDER;SEGTION173, MOTOR^Eln^IiESACT, 1988 Appellants (ffon appiicants3) ly UnrtedIndiaInsjuranceCo.Ltd., In front o£Anui)amaTalkies, Jagdalpur (C. G.) Jtespondents: ^ ^ Ys y^ShaiikarKumar Sur,SA) HaripadSur, ed36^years(Dnver), ,1 ,.j? - - R/6 Qr No.345,AkashNagar,Bacheli, DistriGtDantewada(C.G.) (Nbn-aoplicantl) «.. ^M % GeneralMaIager,NM.D.C.,Deposite5,Bacheli, !/^,/ '^ DistrictDantewada(C.G.) ^' fNori-appIicailt 2i)I ./^y ^ I^endraKumar BuradS/a'Shn|^cgmal||iK£^ ^ ,^ aged^|ye^^I^,|Cj®e(lamtMa^@eedffii||j^^^ / •':'Disftt.®ant^|da|(a^^;%i;:|^RpltcSlWB^ S'ti l :'li 'rr "1 \? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH. BILASPUR Hon'bleShri I.M.Quddusi, J. & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. M.A.No.1289 of 2005 APPELLANT United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shankar Kumar Sur and others. APPEAL UNDERSECTION 1730F THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 Appearance: . Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for the appellant. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel forrespondent No.2. Shri Manoj Paranjpe and Shri Vtkram Dixit, counsel for respondent No.3. Foliowing oral M. Quddusi. J. ORAL ORDER (20/01/2011) order of the Court was passed by This appeal has been fiied by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the impugned award dated 28/06/2005of the Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal. South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) passed in Claim Case No. 61/2005 awarding Rs.5,40,000/- to theinjured ciaimant on thequestion ofquantum. 2. The brief facts of the ease arethaton 21/09/1999atabout4.00 p.m. the appiicant was retuming home from Krishi Upaj Mandi Geedam to Haram Para Geedam in Hero Puch (Moped) then jeep bearing registration No. M.P.-25/5462 coming from Jagdalpur direction being driven rash!y and negligeniiy by non-appticant No.1 dashed the applicant due to which he received injuries on his right leg and grievous injuries on other parts of the body. Hewas admrtted in Maharani Bai Hospital, Jagdalpur for treatment /. '- -. _ _^;- .-' . '..!" /'_ . - .... from where he was referred to Dr. Patel's Nursing Home, Raipur for better treatmenttThe claimant has'ofaimed compensation of|Rs.91 ,66.919/-. 3 . The monthly income of the injured has been a^sessed by the tribunat as Rs.2,500/- per month who was doing agricultural work as well as businessofforestproduce. 4. The medieaiofRcer has certified 40% permane(it disability ofthe right leg and right foot.In the case o^ Nationaf Inswancepo. Ltd.Vs. Mubaslr Ahmedand anofAerreportedin (2Wf7) 2 SCC349 the Hon'ble Apex Court „' ;'/:?- -%- '%t: rg in paragraph 8 has hetd that loss of earning capacity is not a substitute for percentage of the physica! disablement. 't is one of the factors to b.e taken inio accouni. 5. Due to disability towards his right leg and foot certalnly the injurec claimant would not be able to perform agricultural work, however he ca" supewise the same, but he can do the business in forest produce, therefore we are of the opinion that 40% permanent t-lisability be treated as 40% !oss of income. The annual income assessed by the Tribunal wouid be Rs.30,000/-, therefore loss of ineome @ 40% would come to Rs.12000/- per annum. The age of the ciairnant was 23 years and therefore applying multiplier as laid down in Sarte Venna {Smfcj and others vs. and another, reported in f200Q) 6 S.C.C. 121 multiplier of 18 would be applicable and therefore after appiying that multiplier the loss of income comes to Rs.2,16,000/-. The Tribunal has not deducted the percentage of loss of income but treating 100% loss of income and calculated according to the same which has come according to the Tribunal as Rs.4,50,000/- which is too excessive, Besides this for pain and suffering the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-, for med'cal expenses Rs.50,000/-and for stay, lodging, conveyance, diet etc the Tribunal ha; awarded Rs.15000,'- thus over loss of income a sum of Rs.90,000/- has been awarded. Though we think that the amount for stay and attendant etc. are too less, but for pain and suffering has been awarded additional by the Tribunal, therefore we are not interfering in the and thus towards loss of income i.e. Rs.2,16,000''- a sum of Rso0.000,/- should be added and the compensation to be awarded to the Injured would be 3,06,000/- along •ftith 7.5% interest as awarded by the Tribunai from the of fi'mg of the cialm petition tii! the payment is made. 6. The ciaimant wl!l be entitted to get Rs.50.000/- cash and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in Nat'onalized Bank and the interest accrued thereon.shall be paid quarterly. However, in case of any need the ciaimant would be entitled to move application for withdrawal ofthe amount showing sufficient reason. sppea! is al'owed in part to the above ext.ent. Ti- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sdl- prashantKumarMishra Judge ^^_