CHAGGANLAL Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) is appeal is filed by the appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 30.9.2008, passed by learned Additional Member, M.A.C.T., Sardarpur, District Dhar in Claim Case No. 16 of 2007. By the impugned award, Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,37,817 with interest to the appellant by way of compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident occurred on 10.10.2006.

(2.) The appellant had preferred a claimpetition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,00,000. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,37,817, out of which Rs. 51,637 for medical expenses, Rs. 85,680 for general damages including permanent disablement and future loss of earnings and Rs. 500 for pain and suffering.

(3.) Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of injuries. The injured has suffered a com-pressed fracture of L-4 vertebra backbone. He was hospitalised in Mittal Hospital, Dharfrom 11.10.2006 to 12.10.2006 and, thereafter, went to Orthopaedic Hospital, Vadodara (Gujarat) for treatment and remained hospitalised there from 13.10.2006 to 5.11.2006, where his operation was performed by Dr. Kalpit Baxi, who was examined on commission. The statement of Dr. Kalpit Baxi and the certificate of permanent disablement issued by Dr. M.K. Borasi co-relate the difficulties; however, believing the certificate of permanent disablement by the Tribunal to the extent of 20 per cent, looking to the fracture of the backbone is undesirable. It is contended by him that the injured was an agricultural labourer; however, on account of fracture of backbone and in view of the statement of Dr. Kalpit Baxi he would not be in a position to perform his agricultural work in future. In such circumstances, the disablement as opined by the doctor ought to have been accepted or it may be a case of complete loss of earnings due to said disablement. In that view of the matter it is urged that computation of the compensation by the Tribunal accepting disablement to the extent of 20 per cent of the whole body is arbitrary. It is also contended by him that the Tribunal has accepted earnings of the injured at the rate of Rs. 70 per day, though, the date of accident is in the month of October 2006; however, in those days the minimum wages was approximately Rs. 3,000 per month, therefore, the earnings of the injured ought to have been accepted at Rs. 3,000 per month and as per the percentage of disablement or accepting such disablement commensurate to total loss of earnings, the compensation could have been calculated by applying multiplier method as per Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also contended that as per the statement of doctor it is apparent that the appellant was having no control over urination and that is conti-nuing even after the operation and in such circumstances Rs. 500 as allowed to the injured for pain and suffering is inadequate and further urged that no amount has been allowed in other heads like conveyance, attendant charges, special diet and loss of wages during treatment.