Anant Son Of Sidheshwar Dukre vs Pratap Son Of Zhamnnappa Lamzane

3. The facts giving rise to the present petition briefly stated are as follows:

The Appellant fell on the road and sustained multiple injuries. The Appellant fractured his right thigh, right ankle,   and   right   arm.   He   was   admitted   in   various hospitals   for   treatment,   and   underwent   several 2 operations where steel rods were inserted in his right thigh and right knee. Artificial material was inserted in his right shoulder to facilitate restricted movement. The injuries   suffered   by   the   Appellant   resulted   in Permanent Disability to the extent of 75% for which a Disability  Certificate was submitted before the MACT. Appellant also filed an Injury Certificate which records the various injuries suffered by him.  3.2. With   respect   to   the   injuries   sustained   by   the   wife,   a separate Claim Petition was filed before the MACT. The present   Appeal   pertains   only   to   the   claim   for enhancement of compensation made by the Appellant. 3.3. The Appellant filed Claim Petition bearing M.A.C.P. No. 33   of   2014   before   the   Ld.   Motor   Accident   Claims Tribunal, Bhoom seeking compensation under various heads amounting to Rs. 20,00,000 against Respondent No. 1 – the owner of the Maruti Car and Respondent No. 2 –Insurance Company.

3 3.4. The MACT vide Order dt. 07.02.2015 partly allowed the Claim   Petition   and   granted   Rs.   7,00,000   as   a   lump­ sum   compensation   payable   jointly   and   severally   by both   the   Respondents   within   one   month   along   with Interest @ 7% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of the Claim Petition till the date of realization. The   MACT   erroneously   made   a   departure   from   the multiplier method, and granted a lump­sum amount as compensation.   The   Tribunal   did   not   grant compensation under various heads such as actual loss of income, future loss of income, medical expenses, and compensation for permanent disability sustained.  3.5. Being   dissatisfied   with   the   quantum   of   compensation granted   by   the   MACT,   and   the   method   used   for awarding   compensation,   the   present   Appellant   filed First Appeal u/S. 173 of the M.V. Act for enhancement of   compensation,   before   the   High   Court.   The   High Court   vide   its   Judgment   dated   25.01.2017   partly allowed the Appeal by enhancing the compensation to Rs.   14,65,500  with  9%  Interest  p.a. from   the  date  of 4 application,   till   realization.   The   High   Court   held   that lump­sum compensation cannot be awarded, and the multiplier method must be followed. The compensation awarded by the High Court was as follows:

We   do   not   agree   with   the   reasoning   given   by   the High   Court   for   not   accepting   the   income   of   the 7 Appellant. The income of the Appellant must be taken as Rs. 8500 per month.

The MACT in para 4 of the judgment recorded that the   Claimant   had   incurred   total   expenditure   of   Rs. 5,50,000   till   the   date   of   the   judgment   for   medicines, hospital   charges,   doctor’s   fee,   operation   charges, travelling   expenses   and   expense   for   special   diet   and granted Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation based on actual expenditure.

In   such   circumstances,   we   find   it   appropriate   to award the Appellant Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for the life­long pain and suffering by him and his family.

8.   The   total   compensation   awarded   above   is   set   out hereinbelow:

The Appellant is entitled to payment of a total compensation of   Rs.   20,29,000   (Rupees   Twenty   Lakhs   Twenty   Nine Thousand Only) along with Simple Interest at 9% p.a. from the   date   of   the   application   made   before   the   MACT   on 11.10.2010   till   the   date   of   payment   from   both   the Respondents,   who   are   jointly   and   severally   liable   for   the same.   The   amount   be   paid   to   the   Appellant   within   twelve weeks from the date of this judgment.

9. Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs. Pending applications if any are accordingly disposed of.