RAMPRASAD BALMIKI Vs. ANIL KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellant was working as a driver with the Cantonment Board, Gwalior. On or about 14.5.1997, he was riding on a two-wheeler. A Tempo bearing No. MIH-7952 was allegedly being driven by the first respondent rashly and negligently; it collided with the two-wheeler of the appellant. Appellant sustained a fracture in his right femur bone as also tibia bone of his right leg. He was hospitalized. Allegedly, he underwent three operations. The right leg of the appellant is said to have been shortened. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") claiming a sum of Rs. 17.94 lakhs for sustaining permanent disability in his right leg, loss of service, loss of leave, deficiency and expenses in treatment, etc. Long after the said accident took place as also after the filing of the claim petition, he was referred to the Civil Surgeon, Gwalior for medical check up. Allegedly, the Civil Surgeon declared him unfit to drive a vehicle pursuant whereto an order of premature retirement from service on medical ground was passed by the authorities of the Cantonment Board. The driver and the owner of the vehicle indisputably did not contest the claim. The Insurance Company, however, filed a written statement, inter alia, raising a contention that as the appellant had obtained a discharge from J.A. Hospital without permission of Medical Officer and undertaken treatment from other doctors, he was himself responsible for the sorry state of affairs. It was furthermore denied and disputed that he had sustained any permanent disability. A contention was also raised that the accident had taken place due to his own negligence. On the said pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal, inter alia, framed the following issues.

(3.) Mr. Ankur Mody, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that both the Tribunal as also the High Court have committed a serious error insofar as they failed to take into consideration that 'total disablement' would mean 'disablement from doing his job in which he was engaged'. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed by the learned counsel in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Another ((1976) 1 SCC 289). It was furthermore submitted that in any event the High Court should have granted a higher amount of compensation keeping in view loss of his future prospect.