SURESH RAWAT Vs. DILIP KUMAR GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 11.9.2006 passed by learned Fifteenth M.A.C.T., Indore in Claim Case No. 217 of 2005. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,12,464 with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum for the injuries sustained, arising out of the accident which occurred on 12.9.2004. The appellant had preferred a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,00,000 for the grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. The certificate of permanent disablement (Exh. P905) is available on record. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,12,464 out of which Rs. 4,12,464 has been awarded under the head of medical expenses, Rs. 75,000 towards pain and suffering, Rs. 25,000 under the head of special diet and Rs. 1,00,000 in lump sum under the head of permanent disablement.

(2.) Mr. G.K. Neema, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that it is a case in which there was a fracture of right pelvic bone and head injury to the injured. He got admitted in Criticare Superspecialty Hospital, Thane from 12.9.2004 to 14.9.2004, thereafter, in Jairam Hospital, Nasik from 15.9.2004 to 11.10.2004 and again from 11.11.2004 to 29.11.2004. Thereafter, he was treated by Dr. Arun Mulla in Bombay Hospital, Mumbai and remained there from 27.3.2006 to 5.4.2006. At that time the hip replacement as advised was done. He had received disability to the extent of 35 per cent as opined by the Medical Board Certificate (Exh. P905). In view of the aforesaid it is urged that the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 as allowed for future loss of earnings due to disablement is inadequate which is liable to be enhanced reasonably. It is also contended that Rs. 50,000 approximately under medical expenses which relates to the fee of Dr. Mulla is not permitted to be granted on presumption that such amount may be included in the complete bill of hospital, but this is not included therein. It is also contended that for attendant charges and conventional head nothing has been awarded to the injured. On the point of disablement for grant of future loss of earnings it is urged that during such period he engaged three persons to carry on his two businesses, namely, Rawat Kerosene Service Centre and Rawat Travels. However, he spent Rs. 12,500 per month in total by paying them salary, therefore, it was a loss caused to him due to disablement. Such amount may be allowed applying multiplier theory. It is also contended that looking to the income tax return and commensurate to the percentage of disablement compensation may be awarded to the injured applying multiplier theory. In view of the aforesaid it is urged that the appeal may be allowed and the compensation may be enhanced adequately.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. V.P. Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, submits that the Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation under all heads. It is contended by him that in view of the income tax return, earnings of the injured have not come down in the year in which the accident has taken place. Therefore, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,00,000 in lump sum to the injured under the head of permanent disablement. However, in such circumstances, the compensation as assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper, which does not warrant any interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.