(D HON'BLE IN THE HIGHCQURT QF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. ^^f//^ n^ ^^•^Hm M^^. y^'y^^^j Pijj@l| APPELLANT RESPQNDENTS ^- 1^:<"' ^' THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. -^ BRANCH JAGDALPUR, NEAR JHANKAR TAKIES, DISTT. BASTER C.G. Vrs. :-1. KU. GAURIMANI D/0 JAGATRAM AGE ABOUT ,19 YRS, COSTE - MURIYA, RESIDENT FOR VILLAGE KUMHAR RAS, THANA - DANTEWADA, DISTT. DANTEWARA C.G. yi.^ LAXMI PRASAD ALIES RAMCHANDRA S/0 MANGALRAM AGE ABOUT 35 YRS, RESIDENT FOR VILLAGE GAMAWADA, THANA BHANSI, DISTT. DANTEWADA (DRIVER) 3. O TULSI RAM TAMDI S/0 SAMATYA (OWNER), ^ t-RESIDENT FOR VILLAGE GUNLAPETA, TAH. BHOPALPATNAM, DISTT. DANTEWADA MI8CELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bleShri I.M. QuddusL J. & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A.fClNo. 479 of 2006 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Ku. Gaurimani and others. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLE ACT. 1988 Appearance: Shri SudhirAgrawai, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Somnath Verma, counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3. Following I. M. Quddusi. J. ORAL ORDER (09/12/2010) oral order of the Court was passed by This appeat has been fited against the impugned award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 27/09/2006 passed in Claim Case No. 13/2006, by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar, Dantewada by the Insurance Company namely The New India Assurance Company Limited. The award has been challenged on the ground of liability as well as on the question of quantum. (2) The brief facts of the case are that on 07/11/2002 claimant/respondent No.1 after loading of bricks in Mahendra tractor bearing registration M.P.25/B.1106 and troltey No.M.P.25/8.1107 was coming to Dantewada for unloading the bricks. The driver was driving the tractor rashly and.negligently when the tractor reached near the bridge the tractor trolley turtled, due to which claimant/respondent No.1 received grievous injuries on her right leg and her right leg from lower side of knee -"1 ^' ^?^tt^ i> v:"'a gJ -.r^ ^' %5®S ' ^ii^?; was amputated during treatment in the hospital, due to which she became permanentiy disabled. Before accident, the claimant/respondent No.1 was working as Labourer and collection of forest produce and was earning Rs.1600/- per month. The clajmant filed claim petjtion claiming to the tune ofRs.4.69,000/-. (3) We have perused the Lower Court Record, according to the policy the same covers the risk of the employees. It could not be djsproved that the claimant/injured was engaged as a labourer in the Tractor to load and unload the bricks. It could also not be proved by the Insurance Company that the bricks were loaded other than for the agriculture purpose i.e. for the construction of drain in the agricultural field, therefore it cannot be said that the Tractor was being used other than agricultural purpose and also that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the workmen engaged for the purpose of loading or unloading of the bricks and was labourer engaged as a workmen by the owner. (4) Noother point has been raised in respect of the plea regarding liability. (5) Therefore, in view of the above, the plea regarding liability is not su;stainable and it is held that the Insurance Company/appellant is liable to pay compensation. (6) With regard to quantum, we have seen that the claimant has made a prayer to claim Rs.4,69,000/- as compensation but the Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,85,000/- as compensation. (7) The income of the injured/claimant was alleged as Rs.1600/- per month. Her right leg amputation was done below knee and the permanent disability was assessed. However, since the right leg from the knee was ^ .^y "3>- removed. we assess overall percentage of djsabjlity as 60%. Therefore, if we assess the monthly income of Rs.1500/- and overall permanent disabdity is assessed as 60%, the annual jncome would come to Rs.18,000/- and 60% ofwhich would come to Rs.10,800/-. In the case of Saria Venna (Smt.) and others vs. Delhf Transport Corporatfon and another, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given the multiplier scale. Since the injured was about 19 years ofage, the multiplier as given in Sarta Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (supra) would be 18 and thus after applying multiplier of 18the total amountwould come to Rs.1,94.400/-. (8) Besides above, the claimant was an un-married giri and remained admitted in the hospital from 07/11/2002 to 28/01/2003. In the Discharge Certificate of the claimant by the Orthopedic Specialist and Medical Admininstrator, N.M.D.C. Apollo Hospital Center, Bacheli post operative wound was healthy at the time of discharge. She would also be entitled to purchase artificjal leg and therefore on this heads she is entitted to get more than Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore after adding this amount to 1.94,400/- lump-sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- appears to be adequate compensation. (9) Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to get Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum as fixed by the Tribunal, further the penal interest fixed by the Tribunal was not proper, therefore, that part is set-aside and the impugned award is modjfied to the above extent. From the date the payment of award is made, the claimant would get Rs.50,000/- and the remaining amount would be deposited in a Nationalized Bank as fixed deposit. The jnterest of the same shall accrue './ -^ every quarterly and shall be deposited in the Savings Bank Account of the claimant, which will be opened while depositing Rs.50,000/- in her name. (10) If the amount has already been paid by the appellant in excess of the above, the same shall be refunded to it. (11) The appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^y