RAMFUL Vs. MUKHTYAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount granted vide award dated 28.7.1997 passed by Vth Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 51/93.

(2.) THE appellant's case, in brief, was that on 18.9.1992 he was engaged as labourer on truck No. M.P.O. 1853 belonging to respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. At about 3 p.m., this truck turned turtle near village Arjun Baroda, as a result of rash and negligent driving wherein the appellant sustained grievous injuries in his right leg and other parts of the body. He was admitted in M.Y. Hospital. He suffered 21% permanent disability. He filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained absent and were proceeded ex parte. Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company resisted the claim and inter alia pleaded that respondent No. 2 had no valid driving licence and, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal on consideration of evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by respondent No. 2 and awarded compensation of Rs. 12,000/-. Hence, this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount. The respondent Insurance Company filed cross-objections.

(3.) WE considered the arguments advanced by Counsel for both sides and perused the record. It has come in the evidence of Ramful that in truck accident he suffered fracture in his right leg. It had become deformed. He could not move properly. His bone had come out at the place of fracture. Dr. Surender (C.W. 4) supported his evidence. He opined that the right leg of the appellant was shortened and bone was also coming out at the place of fracture. He could not move properly. It assessed his disability at 21% vide certificate Ex. P.2. It is true that Dr. Surender did not treat the appellant in M.Y. Hospital and he was not an orthopedic surgeon. But shortening of leg and deformity could be seen even by an ordinary surgeon also. Under such circumstances, we believe the statement of Dr. Surender and hold that the appellant suffered permanent disability of his right leg. The appellant did not produce the bills or vouchers of the medicines purchased by him. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,000/- to the appellant. In our opinion, in case of permanent disability, no amount, less than the amount payable under no fault liability can be awarded. It is true that this accident took place on 18.9.1992 and on that date Rs. 12,000/- were payable for permanent disability under no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. But this amount was enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- vide amending Act of 54/94 which came into force on 14.11.1994. A Division Bench of this Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Prakash Narayan and Ors. passed on 9.10.1998 in M.A. No. 640/96, has held that the provisions of law as it stood on the date of passing of the award, shall apply. The award was passed on 28.7.1997. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 25,000/- as compensation.