JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. SANTU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by claimant dissatisfied with quantum of compensation awarded to him by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputali, vide its award dated 04.10.2004 in MAC Case No.443/2002.

(2.) Appellant sustained injuries in a road accident on 01.03.2002 involving a jeep bearing registration No.HR-35-8553, which was being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. As a result of accident, appellant received 13 injuries, three of which were fractures in both legs and one fracture in hand. The medical board, that examined him for assessing his disability, found that there was shortening of his right lower limb by 2 inch thereby causing disability of 16%. He suffered 3% limping and 3% difficulty in sitting cross-leg, climbing and walking. Thus, total disability sustained by appellant was assessed at 27.31%. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.76,500/- and cost of Rs.500/-, thus in total compensation of Rs.77,000/- has been awarded. Aggrieved thereby, appellant has approached this court seeking enhancement of compensation.

(3.) Shri Akshat Choudhary, learned counsel for appellant has argued that learned Tribunal has erred in law in not awarding any compensation to the appellant for future loss of earning capacity. Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that not only there was permanent disability of 27.31% ,but also shortening of right leg by 2 inch. Even then, it awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation under this head. Appellant suffered lot of physical pain and mental agony but learned Tribunal has awarded him a small sum of Rs.30,000/- on this head. He has further been awarded compensation of Rs.28,500/- for actual medical expenses. Compensation of Rs.5000/- has been awarded for loss of earning during hospitalization and Rs.2000/- for transportation etc. Learned counsel has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Shashendra Lahiri Vs. UNICEF and Others, 1998 ACJ 859. It was argued that appellant was earning a sum of Rs.6000/- per month. The Tribunal has completely ignored this aspect. He also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Ramachandrappa Vs. The Manager, Royal Sundraram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Civil Appeal No.6481/2011 decided on 09.08.2011. Learned counsel argued that the Supreme Court in that case had accepted monthly income of injured at Rs.4,500/- per month, who was working as coolie. Learned counsel argued that the Supreme Court in Syed Mehaboob Vs. The New India Assurance Limited, Civil Appeal No.1441/2011, decided on 07.02.2011, wherein injured had sustained 43% permanent disability to the whole body, as a result of which injuries, he was unable to walk, sit or stand without support and his left lower limb was shortened by 2.5 inches. The Supreme Court upheld the award in that case granting total compensation of Rs.5,77,800/-. Learned counsel also cited judgment of the Supreme Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sudesh and Others, Civil MAC App. No.397/2011, decided 09.02.2012, and argued that the Supreme Court therein took cognizance of the fact that even minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act increase from time to time and, therefore, held that deceased, who was working as Plant Engineer, and thus claimants would be entitled to addition of 50% in the income of deceased on account of indexation and increase in minimum wages to provide better standard of living.