•^ XI-HC-78 *iW^[ Sb^ich ^=Sf r^iqi^q, ^^^(0, K^W^< ^.M.ft..MP.,..lS?...^2oo^ CL-/^ 3TT^Tq^^ (yii^si^) 3TT^T^)T^i^ c^TT3RT^T5h*41<=h k"- ^cTT^K ^rfN'3T1^T APPELLANT: CLAIMANT V^RSUS RESPONDENTS: Present- Shri Anil Paadey, coiinsel for ShriAnaiid Kum.ar Gupta, cbl^fd41^ WT^t' ^ tetA ^R^K ^3Tf^T3TT^T Netraoi Sahu, S/o Raai Siagh alias Ramsingh Sahu, aged about 44 years, Resident ofViUage- Gainjee, P.S, Lalpur, Distdct-BUaspur. 1. Mukesh Isayee, S/o Silloo Isayee, aged 34 years, Resident of Bade Barela, P.S. Jarhagaon, Distdct-BUaspur (C.G.) 2. Laxrai Chand Sachdeva, S/o Khemchaad Sachdeva, Resident of Main-Road Takhatpiir, P.S. Takhatpnr, Distdct-BUaspur 3. The New India Insuraace Co. Ltd., Through its Braiich Maaager, Braiich Office, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Tahsil aad Distiict-BUaspur. ftjie appellaat cou^isel for fhe respondent No.3 OllAL ORDER (Passe<|l on 20.03.2007) P.T.O. ^t' - XI-HC-78 TS[ •^Mld^, ^Tfl^^Ko, fadiy^< +11*1^11 aKTT^t ^ 200 3{1^1 ^ach (yii^si^) 3Tl^T9)TR-)i<+) c^Tf3Tr^T$b^|ch ??cn^?TfN'w^t <=t)Nt<n41Ti ^i^ciT ^f^t <Ri^T< ^3Tf^T3^T \ ^ The claimaathas prefer^d fhis appeal under Section 173 of the award dated 24th October 2002 fhe M.V. Act being aggrieved bfc passed by fhe 5th Additionajl Bilaspur ia clami case No. lf27[ awarded aa amount ofRs. 1,20; Rs.10,000/- for medical expeijises thereby iii aU. aii aiaount o^ agaiiist respondent No.3. Motor Accident Clainis Tribunal, 2001 whereby learaed Tribunal has OOO/- agaiast pennaaent disability, s, Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, Rs.1,40,000/- has been awarded Case of fhe claimaat w^is that on 9-5-2001 he boarded fhe drivitig m.uii bzis bearing registration gomg to his village. Responde^it bus whereas, respondent Respondent No.l started rash and negUgent niaaner, staadiag on the right side of result of that accident, fhe cl^di his right hand. He w^s admitte|i his right hand was amputed, disabiUty aad he is not able was workiag as carpenter whc |No. M.P.-26-C/5638 at BUaspur for No. 1 herein. was driver of the said N|o.2 was fhe owner of fhe bus. the l^imf flie bus at a very high speed, in |ie dashed fhe biis agamst a tree road near vUlage Jorapara. As a l^imant snstaiaed fractiire iajury on to the hospital. Dnring treatinent, t^ierefore, he has siiffered permaaent t|o perform his duties. The claunaat :|reby he used to eam Rs.100/- per P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^scT^^TFn^ra', ^Tfly^ifi, fcidw^< *11<4^TTSt»+1|ch ^[200 €) 3ll^l M^ch (li<:;'^<s<<^T) 3:n^?T oF)T f^ri^ cT^T3:n^T$hHI<=h ?^Tm<riiff3n^TT <=t) i^[^41 -1 ^ i^^iT ^^6 i^i4-dl< ^3Tf^T3TI^5T :4 ^-^ day, Rs.3,000/- per month. of Rs.8,85,000/- & 15% mtei^ addzice their evidence. Vide| Tpierefore, he is entitled for flie claim jst fhereon. Parties were aUowed to tbe after scrutmizm.g evidence re{ admitted fhat right haad of even fhen he raight be earauig) it is appropriate to assess lo{ uicurruig expenses for his spending Rs.1,000/- per iaoi|ifh claitnaat at fhe tune of accid^ iaipugned award leomed Tribzinal kched to fhe conclusion that it is age of a person is 60-65 year^ 10 Tribunal has awarded fhe claimaat has been amputed but soniethuig, fherefore, based on fhat ^s of Rs.1,500/- per monfh. After personal UvelUiood he raight be on his faauly. The age of fhe |nt was 42 years. Nomial expected , fherefore, by applyuig inultipUer of cjonipensation of Rs. 1,20,000/ -. Learaed coiinsel for th^ fhe first uistaace when fhe ag4 tuiie of fhe accident, leame{ niiiltipUer of 15 as per Schedi^le Second argunient ^of learaed was fhat ia this case, claima3|it appropriate for fhe Tribiinal t^> fhe clainiaat, that caa be clamiaat/appeUaat argiied that ia of fhe claiDiaat was 42 years at fhe 1 Tribunal ought to have appUed aanexed with the M.V. Act, 1988. counsel for fhe clauiiaat/appellant is stiU aUve, therefore, it was not dedzict one third of fhe incorae of dediticted only ia the case of deafh of the P.T.O. XI-HC-78 T5^ •^l-MKn'M, «>Tf1^<16, (sfcrll'M^ *11+1^1 ?h*1icb ^200 3TT^?T ^rara? (yii^<s<^) 3:n^T^)TR-ii<=b r^TT3TT^Tst)^lcb ^Tr^K^NOT^T ch 1^ [cn^fl Ti ^ i ^i^l ^ te^t <Ri<•<-!< ^3Tf^-IT3T(^T •i ^ bread earaer aiid claim is fll Third argunient of learaed that fmding ofthe Tribzinal haiid he inight be eamiag reasoniag. The right haad therefore, he has suffered to do his carpentry work. coilinsel thkt ctf led by dependent faoitly inembers. for fhe claimaat/appeUaat was even after aiaputation of his right iOiaething is not based on sound fhe clairnaat has been amputed, disability aad he is not able per|iiiaaent On fhe other haad/lean(ied supported fhe award passed bj counsel for fhe respondent No.3 theTribzmal. The Tnbiinal has reach( claimaat was 42 years at the been disputed by leamed Therefore, learaed Tribunal 10, mstead offhat, as per Sch< been appUed, [d to fhe concliision that age of fhe jtime of the accident, same has not ^ozuisel for fhe respondent No.3, h|as incorrectly appUed iiiiiltipUer of ?dule, niiiltiplier of 15 ozight to have Fiading of the Tribunal right haiid claimant ttii^ht be ou aay sound reasoning or evi< his evidence has categoricaUy that even after axaputation of fhe |arniiig soniethiag is also not based evi<|lence because claunaat ia para-7 of [stated that after aaiputation of his P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3^ ;:2TRTI^T, «>Tfl'H<t(S,)"Gldl^y< +11*1^11$h^|ch ^200 3T^T^^ (^c<i^sl(^T) ^n^T^Tf^Tre cT^TW^Tsb^llcb ?^ffa?R^N'3Ti^ ^rafeNt-T w^fr' ^"^Q <^i< ^ ^rf^'R'3TI^?f 4. { ^ right hand he is not able to right haad has been aaiputed, he is capable to do his carpe4try has stated fhat he is not doin^ his nght haad. Therefore, coi|i Claknaat has suffered ^o any work. When fhe claiaiaat's fherefore, it caiuiot be expected that work. In cross-examination, he [ carpentry work after ampzitation of iclusion of the Tribunal is mcorrect. peniJLanent entitied for fiiU claini which accident. For fhis, I axa fprtifi^ Apex Court ia fhe matter Shrinivas Sabata & anotherl which fhe Apex Court held injuiy ia fhe course of fhe elbow, siace carpentei)1 disablement is total aad not p^rtial. disability, tiierefore, he is pie was eamlag at the tim.e of fhe fprtifi^d in ray view by fhe judgnient of fhe |of Pratap Narain Singh Deo V. reported in AIR 1976 8C 222 in |fhat carpenter sustamed personal emploj^ment, amputation of left arm from caanot work with one haad, Now coiniag to fhe eara^ag doiiig work of carpentty. He has further statejd., fhat he residence af his viUage. It i^ side it is dtfiEicult to get work m fhe viUage side carpenters bag/clamiant has stated fhat he was used to eam Rs. 100/ - per day. He was doiag carpentory work at his comnion knowledge fhat in. viUage all fhe days m a monfh. NormaUy, have work hardly for 20 days in a f<t)r cjaa P.T.O. XI-HC-78 OT^T^)TRRT% c^TT 3Tf^T $h^ich ^ -. Barve 3^ ^|q|<-iq, ^TTl^^Ko, l^cll^y <41+1dl sh+lich ^ 200 STT^TtT^T (^Gii^q^) ^FcTr^;?rf??f3fl^ monfh, therefore, in all pro^ability Rs.2,000/- per month, as su<: Rs.2,000/- per month. is, clauiiaat is entitled for a claun of ^- x 12 x 15 which comes to For fhe fbregoiag reaso^i Rs.3,60,000/- i.e. Rs.2,000|/ Rs.3,60,000/- as agamst abj^ve claim of fhe clamiaiit Learaed Tribunal has already awardedj entitied for Rs.2,40,000/- in ajddition j Rs. 1,20,000/-, therefore, claimant is afddition to what has been awarded. chNtcn^'-i ^ii^* ^f {it^t <Ri^i< ^3Tf^T3T(^f ^ability, claimaat might be eamiag h, his loss of uicoine is assessed at lal is allowed. Respondent No.3 is I- raore ia addition to fhe anionnt In fhe reszilt, fhe app^ directed to pay Rs. 2,40,000^ awarded by the Tnbunal. Cla3|maat shall be entitled for iaterest at th.e rate of9% on Rs.2,40,000j - from fbe date ofthe appUcation. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge P.T.O.