PRAHLAD SHIVHARE Vs. RAJEEV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded to him by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 111/04.

(2.) BY the aforesaid award for the injuries and permanent disability suffered by the claimant, a sum of Rs. 6,39,500/- has been awarded. Inter alia contending that the aforesaid award is very much on the lower side, this appeal for enhancement has been filed. Facts not in dispute are that claimant was working as a first driver in truck No. UP 78/T-5499, he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month and on the date of accident the said truck was going from Bhadora to Myana. At the relevant time the truck was driven by one Rajeev Kumar respondent No. 1, the truck, belonged to respondent No. 2 - Kailashchand and was insured with respondent No. 3. Because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver i.e. respondent No. 1, the truck before it could reach Myana lost balance and turned turtle, as a result, appellant sustained serious injuries on his spinal card. He was admitted in the hospital, where he was treated and operated upon. He has suffered permanent disability and cannot walk or move, he is completely paralyzed, claiming compensation for the permanent disability of 100% after contending that he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month, claim petition was filed. The Tribunal has accepted the plea of 100% disability and after assessing the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 3,000/- per month and after applying multiplier of 16, compensation of Rs. 5,76,000/- is awarded. To this a further amount of Rs. 33,500/- towards medical expenses as proved from the medical bills have been added and Rs. 30,000/- has been awarded for pain and suffering. Accordingly a total compensation of Rs. 6,39,500/- has been awarded.

(3.) REFUTING the aforesaid and by filing a cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC, respondent No. 3/Insurance Company submits that in this case also the compensation awarded is reasonable and no case for enhancement is made out. In the cross objections it is stated even when the permanent disability is established, l/3rd towards self expenses should have been deducted and cross objections be allowed, in this regard reliance is placed on a judgment rendered in a case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and another [2005 (2) TAC 297].