CHAINSINGH Vs. GENDALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the claimant in a motor accident claim case for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that on 15. 8. 1983 the respondent No. 1, Gendalal, driving the car No. GAR 8425, hit the appellant and caused injuries to him. The appellant suffered a fracture in the leg and suffered a permanent disability. A sum of Rs. 8,000/- has been awarded to the appellant with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the application till payment.

(2.) MR. Sujan Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the amount of compensation is meagre and deserves to be enhanced. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Gwalior Bench of this court in Narendra Pal Singh Rana v. Padamchand Jain 1993 ACJ 541 (MP ). On the point of enhancement of rate of interest it was pointed out relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corporation v. Anjani Chaturvedi 1993 ACJ 363 (MP), that at least interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum should have been granted keeping in view the devaluation of the rupee factor. Mr. A. K. Dhupar, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that on the evidence on record, no further enhancement in the compensation can be claimed as, according to him, a person suffering disablement at the age of 56 years has not to live with it for a longer time. According to Mr. Dhupar, the percentage of disability has also not been proved and, therefore, there is no case for enhancement.

(3.) ON the assessment of the evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has reached a conclusion that the appellant had suffered 25 per cent loss of earning capacity. This finding has not been challenged by the respondents by filing an appeal or a cross-objection. We have, therefore, to proceed on the basis of the appellant having suffered 25 per cent loss in his earning capacity. In his own statement the appellant, who was examined as PW 2, has stated that he was engaged in an agricultural work prior to the accident and was able to earn about Rs. 10,000/- per annum. The loss of earning capacity, therefore, at the rate of 25 per cent would be about Rs. 2,500/- per annum, if the appellant carries on agricultural work on his own without engaging a servant to supplement his decreased working capacity. In his cross-examination he has stated that a labourer has to be paid Rs. 8/- per day. If a labourer is engaged for the purpose all the year round, the payment will have to be around Rs. 3,000/- per annum. Thus, the loss can be assessed between Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 3,000/- per annum. According to the appellant himself he was 55 years of age at the time of the accident though this is disputed by the respondents who claim that he was 70 years of age at the time of the accident. However, there is no basis for disbelieving the appellant, who has consistently given his age as 55-56 years. The working life left for the appellant cannot be assessed less than 10 years as agriculturists do work easily up to the age of 65 years. It would, therefore, be just and proper to assess the annual loss caused to the appellant because of the accident, keeping in view the inflationary trends, at Rs. 3,000/- per annum and on the basis of the working life left to the appellant after the accident of 10 years, an amount of Rs. 30,000/- would be the proper compensation. So far as the interest is concerned, rate of 9 per cent per annum is definitely on the lower side. The percentage should at least be 15 per cent per annum.