>F' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH. BILASPUR M.A.{C)No.898of2007 APPELLANT: Rajesh Kumar Pandey - Versus - RESPONDENTS: Vidyanand Thakur & others ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNiL KUMAR SINHA O-^e^. Sd/- _a. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge POST FOR PRONOUNCE?<4ENT OF ORDER ON/Z^NOVEMBER. 2007 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge .aUfeM^. !g%^^:fc^.-. I ^fi^ '^ c% H!QH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Djvision Bench: Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'ble Mr. Sunsi Kumar Ssnha, JJ. APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS: M.A.fClNo.898of2007 Rajesh Kumar Pandey, aged about 21 years, S/o Late Shri Ramjhul Pandey, R/o Near Budhwari Bazar, Beergaon, Raipur, Disfrict Raipur - Versus - 1. 3. Vidyanand Thakur, aged about 34 years, S/o Shri Nageshwar Thakur, R/o Sector-lt, Bhilai, City & District Durg (C.G.) Anil Kumar Jain, S/o Shri Gulab Chand Jain, R/o Mohaba Bazar, Raipur, City & District Bilaspur (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through: Divisional Manager, The Orientai Insurance Company Limited, Madina Manzi!, Jaii Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Present: Mr. R. Pradhan, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3/!nsurance Company. (Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) ORDER (Passed on 1£^ November, 2007) The.following order of the Court was passed bvJ..C._S/>acfoo, J, 1. The claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehictes Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') for enhancement of the compensation amount, being aggrieved by She award dated 30-3-; passed by the 11 Additiona! Motor Acddent Claims Tribunal (FTC) Raipur, in c!aim case No.74/2004 whereby the iearned Tribunal awarded ^' compensation to the claimant to the tune of Rs.2,03,500/- under the following heads:- (i) Rs.1 lakhfor taking treatment in Bhilai Hospital. (ii) Rs.25,000/- paid to Kalda Nursing Home for treatment. ^ (iii)Rs.1500/- for ambuiance charges. (iv)Rs.72,000/- for loss of income for 3 years and the Tribunalassessed income of the claimant as Rs.2,000/- per month and (v) Rs.5,000/- has beenawarded underthe head ofpain and suffering. Thereby in a!l Rs.2,03,500/- has been awarded. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, necessary for the disposal of this appeat are that on 22-12-20)1 cfaimant Raj'esh Kumar Pandey was working as helper on the crane vehicle bearing No.M.P.-23/GA-7949. On that day at about 5 p.m. non-applicant Wdyanand Thakur was using and operating the said crane vehicle at Bhavani Timber, Ranwabhata, Police Station Khamtarai. As a result of rash and negligent operation of the said crane vehicle by non- applicant No.1, operator, part of the crane came in contact with the live electric wire, as a result ofwhich the claimant along with Bharat Verma and ishwar Sinha sustained burin injuries due to electric current. The applicant became permanent disabte whereas, Ishwar Sinha died on account of electrocution. The matter was reported in the Police Station Khamtarai under Crime No.4/2002 against non-applicant No.1 for commission of offence under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. The police after investigation filed charge sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. The claimant was admitted in the Kalda Nursing Home & thereafter Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai. He sustained serious injuries on hand and !eg, as a result of which his teft leg below the knee was amputed. He incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs for treatment. As per the medical certificate, he sustained 60% permanent disability. At the time of the accident he was aged about 21 years. He used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month along with Rs.50/- as daily allowance. Non-applicants No.1 and 2, owner and driver of the said crane vehicle, remained ex-parte. They did not file any reply. However, the ciaim was contested by the Oriental Insurance Company by filing a repty in which it was mentioned that the alleged accident does not come within the purview of motor accident. In fact, the accident took piace on account of crane dashed with the motor. ft' ^^<~° 9 l..—«afflH j g S VSStSs0"^ 1 3. After framing of the issues, parties were aitowed to lead evidence. After considering the evidence, pleadings ofthe parties and materiaS on record, learned Tribunat passed the impugned award. 4. Cross-appeal has also been filed by respondent No.3 saying that the said accident does not come within She purview of the Act, 1988. Even it has been mentioned that the c!aimant is not entitled for compensation amount awarded to him. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. As far as challenge to the compensation amount is concemed, respondent Company has not sought any permission under Section 170 of the Act 1988 to chaiienge the compensation amount. Therefore, respondent Company is not entitled to challenge the compensation amount. The company is entitled to raise objection as contained in Section 149(2) ofthe Act, 1988, therefore, iearned counsel for respondent No.S^lnsurance Company argued only one point that the acddent in question does not come within the punfl'ew of the motor accident & the claimant is not entitled for any compensation under the provislons of Section 166 of the Act, 1988. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant argued that in fact, the cfaimant sustained fatal injury in use of motor vehicle, as such, he is entitied for the claim. 8. tn this connection, prowsions of Section 165 of the Act, 1988 envisage that 'A State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna!s for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arlsing out of ttie use of motor vehides, or damages te any pioperty ofa fhifd parfy so arisjn^, or boff?.' Section 166 of the Act, 1988 envisages that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made before the Tribunal. Therefore, conjoint reading of Sections 165 and 166 of the Act, 1988 makes it clear that the claim for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death or bodily' injury to persons arising ouf of the use of motor vehicles can be filed before the Accident Claims Tribunal. 9. Perusal of para-4 of the claim petition filed by the daimant shows that on 22-12-2001 at about 5 p.m. respondent No.1 herein was operating motor 'SsVSSy-^S^Sii'S /f\ca'm" ^ ''^y^. '&. ^ft.r^''11 :~^'~?^ crane bearing No.M.P.-23/GA/7949 at Bhavani Timber, Ranwabhata, Police Station Khamtarai, on account of rash and negligent operation of ttse said vehicle by respondent No.1 crane came in contact with the live electric wire, as a result of which claimant, Bharat Verma and Ishwar Sinha suffered electric current, due to which the appiicant beeame permanent disable and tehwar Sinha died on account of etectrocution. 10.01aimant Rajesh Kumar Pandey has stated that on 22-12-2001 at the time of the acddent respondent No.1 was operating crane bearing NO.M.P.23/GA-7949. They went in the said crane to Bhavani Timber, Ranwabhata. They were unloading the truck & ha!f truck was already unloaded, at that time pressure machine was being lifted. On account of rash and negligent operation of She crane, crane came in contact with the live electric wire, as a result of which a!l of them sustained electric current, his left !eg was burnt due So electric current and Ishwar Sinha died on account of electrocution. He was admitted in the Kalda Nureing Home & thereafter to Sector-9 Hospitai, Bhilai. On account of spreading of poison in his left teg, his !eft leg was amputed below knee. He has become permanent disable. Even Bharat Verma has also given his evidence on affidavit. !n reply to the above evidence, no evidence has been adduced by the respondent/lnsurance Company. There is nothing on record to controvert the above evidence of claimant and Bharat Verma who were sitting on the motor crane at the relevant time, therefore, from the evidence of these two witnesses, It is established that the claimant sustained electric current & he sustained injury arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Therefore, the claimant has rightly filed daim petition. He is entitled to file daim under Section 166 ofthe Act, 1988. We do notfind any substance in the argument advanced by iearned counsel for the Insurance Company. 11.Learned counse! for the appellant argued Shat under the head of disability even though tearned Tribunal in'para-12 has he!d that the ciaimant has sustained 60% permanent disabiSity, even then compensation for ioss of 3 years' salary has been awarded. Buf th®fact remains that on account of amputation of !eg the claimant is npt able to work, therefore, he has suffered 100°A disability, He is a boy of 21 years, therefore, by applying multiplier of 17 he ought to have been awarded compensation of 17 x Rs.24,000/- = 4,08,000/- for !oss of income. 12.As per {he finding ofthe Tribunal in para-12, the Tribuna! has held that as per the certificate given by the doctor, on account of amputation of !eft ieg ^Js./ Ban/e of the claimant he has susteined 60% permanent disability. In this connection, evidence of witness No.2 Dr. Mamta is reievant, who has stated that she is working as Deputy Director In Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai, in burn unit. The claimant namely, Rajesh Pandey remained admitted in their hospital from 25-12-2001 to 14-2-2002. He was admitted in the hospital on 25-12-2001. On account of electric current sustained by him, his teg was swollen and was burnt. Left pa!m of the hand was also burnt. Grafting was done on the burn part. Thereafter on 31-1-2002 his left leg was amputed below knee. He was discharged on 14-2-2002. She has further stated that on account of amputation of leg and other injuries he will not be able to work and he has become totally permanent disable. 13. !n view of the above evidence and the evidence of Rajesh Kumar Pandey, after amputation of teg he is not able to work, thereby he has become totally disabie to earn his iivelihood by engaging himself in any work. Therefore, tiiis is a case of permanent disability and tota! deprivation from the work in order to earn his livelihood. The Tribuna! has assessed his monthiy income at Rs.2,000/- & he is a boy of 21 years, therefore, as per the Schedule appended with She Act, 1988, multipiier of 17 has to be applied, therefore, he is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,08,000/-. 14.1n the result, the appeal of the claimant succeeds and same is altowed. The claimant shalt be entitled to compensation of Rs.4,08,000/- under the head of 100% permanent disability in addition to foilowing heads:- (i) Rs.1 !akh towards treatment in Bhilai Hospital. (ii) Rs.25,000/- towards treatment in Kalda Nursing Home. (iii) Rs.1500/- towards ambulance charges. (iv)Rs.5,000/-towards pain and suffering. He shall be entitled for interest @. 6% on the above amount from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 2-11 -2004. „ _^——— Lv ! :j-ssinh'