UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company is whether loss of front right upper incisor tooth of the injured claimant would amount to a permanent disability as defined under S.142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod has taken the view in the award passed in O. P. (MV) 451/93 that it would. In a motor accident, which took place on 17.3.1993, the 1st respondent herein sustained certain minor injuries and also fracture of the right incisor tooth. Later the tooth was extracted. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened on account of the negligence of the 1st respondent in the O. P. (MV) and therefore respondents 1 to 3 are liable to compensate the petitioner. The above finding is not under challenge in this appeal filed by the 3rd respondent Insurance Company.

(2.) The claimant is a young man of 28 years old and working as a teacher in a parallel college. The Tribunal held that he is entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,500/- as compensation for pain and suffering, Rs. 5000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs. 1500/- towards medical and miscellaneous expenses and Rs. 12,000/- towards disability. Thus a total amount of Rs. 17,500/- was found as compensation due to the claimant. Thereafter the Tribunal proceeded to consider a contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the compensation to be awarded cannot at any rate be below Rs. 25000/-, to which he would be entitled to under S.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the petitioner had suffered permanent disability. The argument was that by loss of one front upper incisor tooth the petitioner had suffered permanent disability entitling him to compensation under S.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal after comparing the provisions contained under S.142 of the Motor Vehicles Act and S.320 of the IPC came to the conclusion that though loss of a tooth would easily fall under the definition of grievous hurt under S.320 IPC (Cl. 7) in the absence of a stipulation similar to clause seventhly of S.320 IPC in S.142 of the Motor Vehicles Act the loss of a tooth cannot be straightaway be held to amount to permanent disability as defined under S.142 of the Motor Vehicles Act. After entering the above finding the learned Tribunal proceeded to examine whether the tooth would be a member referred in cl. (a) and (b) of S.142 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The following extract from Dr. Hari Singh Gour's Penal Law of India 10th Edition was then quoted:

(3.) The learned Tribunal then takes note of the fact that the petitioner had not raised any contention under S.142(a) or (b). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the permanent disability suffered by the petitioner would come under S.142(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal then extracted a portion from Gour's Penal Law of India 10th Edition page 2839 dealing with the word "disfigure". The following is the quotation: