^V^--^ »'/-~->>."-^<-(-^).--^.-^^..^^^, ,„ ^ \^-' ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTBGARHATBILASPUR ^ Misc»Appeal No. .Lo^ PELLAP-H- idcttrtNo.3 -Versus / QaLmant /i ./' R^PONDENT EfcfendantNo.l ^^- "R@foNDENT feiidantNo.2 (^iesit^ri hisiiiwice Cosr^asiy Lt<i, Paiiipat Br^xdi Ttiroug^i EMwffloanal Qffice, Jail Road, R^ipitt', Tlwougti Dlvisiosial Maiiag^ Bilaspur(Ca). Aqim Das, 46 yeare/ S/o Nandlal Aganval/ Btijginessuian R/o Naharpara/ Raipur, DSstrict- Raiptir(Ca). I^sinesli Kttm^r, S/o Gyasiiraii^ R/o Bramhaii Majra^ Panipat^ Hatyatz^ Through HareekSmgh BallcarSangh, Hoiise No. 21 OL-1, Model Town/ Pardpat, Haiyana. - Ddver- AxrreekSn^ S/o BaIIc^rSngh, R/o House No. 21 OL-X Modal Towr^ Paiiipat, Hasyasia. - O^aiiei'- APPEALTL?NDERSECriON173 OFTHE MOTORVEHICLES ACT. 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. No. 200 of 2003 Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Respondents Arjun Das & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 85 Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri H. S. Patel, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. None for the respondents No. 2 and 3. (^ ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 1st day ofDecember, 2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. This appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 20.12.2002, passed by the 8th Additional Motor Vehicles Tribunal (FTC), Raipur in Claim Case No. 6/2002, on the question of quantum. The permission under Section 170 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been granted to the appellant by the Tribunal on 17.4.2002. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the lower Court record as well as the findings given in the impugned award. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the claimant Arjun Das filed a claim case for award of a total compensation of Rs. 23,38,500/- under various heads on the ground that on 16.5.1996 at about 11.00 p.ni. when he was going on a rickshaw from Ambala Cant Sadar Bazar to Railway Station, at that time a Maruti Car, bearing registration No. D.L. 5-C/4855, which was being driven by the non-applicant No.l in a rash and negligent manner, hit the rickshaw, thereby the claimant fell down and received various' injuries. He was admitted to the hospital and spent a huge amount in the treatment. According to the doctor'he has got 30% permanent disability. Learned Tribunal, having regard to the facts and evidence, assessed the yearly income of the claimant as Rs. 50,000/- and taking into consideration the age of the claimant between 40 to 50 years applied the multiplier of 13 thereby calculated the loss of income as Rs. 50,000/- x 13 = 6,50,000/-. After deducting l/3rd of the total loss of income i.e. Rs. 2,16,670/- as well as Rs. 33,330/-, because the claimant is alive, it was held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. In addition to it Rs. 5000/- was awarded for pain and suffering. Thus, the total award of Rs. 4,05,000/- has been awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal. According to the medical certificate the permanent disability to the extent of 30% only, in respect of hip function, has been certified by the doctor i.e. Dr. K. Sudarshan, Medical Officer, J. N. M. Medical College and Associated Hospital, Raipur. It is apparent that the Tribunal has treated total 30% permanent disability but the loss of income assessed as for 100% disability, because no deduction has been made by the Tribunal by awarding the compensation to the extent of permanent disability. Therefore, the award ofthe Tribunal is liable to be modified as under. Since the claimant got 30% permanent disabilily towards one hip function ofleft side, therefore, at the maximum the total disability, for the 30% permanent disability of one hip function, can be assessed only to the extent of 15%. Considering the income tax ^^^^^ ^ ^K^^. 1 ft / 8. return, which was filed after the date of the accident before the income tax authorities, the total income of the claimant has been shown as Rs. 40,500/-. If we take the yearly income as Rs. 40,000/-then 30% of 40,000/- will come to Rs. 12,000/- and if it is multiplied by 13 it would come to Rs. 1,56,000/- Besides, this the claimant was hospitalized from 18.5.1996 to 21.5.1996 in the hospital at Ambala Cant, therefore towards transportation of the attendant from Ambala and stay as well as special diet expenses for this period, would come approximately Rs. 10,000/-. The claimant got fracture also and borne pain and suffering therefore towards pain and suffering we award Rs. 15,000/-. For loss of inconie for this period and coming back from Ambala Cant to Raipur also, we assess Rs. 10,000/- and for medical expenses we assess Rs. 9000/-. The total of which comes to Rs. 44,000/-. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is modified to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/-( Rs. 1,56,000 + 44,000). The claimant would be entitled to get this amount from the appellant. We have been informed that by way of interim order the present appellant has already deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- which has already been withdrawn by the claimant. Therefore, there would be no need to deposit any further amount by the Insurance Company. If any amount has been deposited in excess to the above awarded amount, the Insurance Company would be free to withdraw the same or recover the same from the claimant. The appeal is allowed and the impugned award dated 20.12.2002 is modified accordinRb^, No order as to ccr^^ igb^. Thakur Sd/- LM-Quddusi | Judge | Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge