MOHAR SINGH Vs. GORELAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award dated 30th Sept., 2004 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhabua in Claim Case No. 75/2000 in which the Tribunal had awarded only Rs. 81,600.00 as against the claim of Rs. 13,40,000.00 on account of the injury sustained in an accident.

(2.) As per the case set up by the appellant, on 22nd Feb., 1999 at about 7.30, while claimant Mohar Singh was going as a pillion rider with Khemraj on the motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-17/B-1414 towards Kalidevi, on account of the fault in the mechanism, the rider Khemraj had started pushing it by holding its handle while Mohar Singh was pushing it from behind. At that time a Gas Tanker bearing Registration No. UP-78-B-0572 driven by respondent No. 1 Gorelal approached at an alarming speed and on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the tanker, an accident occurred in which Khemraj died on the spot and the appellant Mohar Singh sustained injury in his right leg, head and left leg. The tanker was chased by by standers and stopped and F.I.R. was lodged at the Police Station. It was stated that the appellant was a cultivator having 30 Bighas of agricultural land and considering his age namely 35 years, he deserved to be granted compensation of Rs. 13,40,000.00. The Tribunal on assessment of the evidence, awarded Rs. 30,000.00 for permanent disability of 30%, Rs. 41,600.00 for the medical expenses, Rs. 5,000.00 for pain and sufferings and Rs. 5,000.00 for conveyance. The bone of contention between the Counsel is confined to the adequacy of the compensation.

(3.) Mr. Patwa has referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2005 (2) M.P.W.N. 124, Rameshchandra Vs. M/s. Citizen Transport Company (Pvt.) Ltd ,. and contended that the facts of the present case being pari materia with the facts of the said case, the appellant should also be awarded a sum of Rs. 2,12,000.00 as was awarded in that case. In the said case claimant had suffered 35% permanent disability because of the fracture of the leg. After calculating the compensation, Their Lordships observed that they had made the said determination after taking into account entire evidence led by the claimant and on finding that it is reasonable, proper and legal to pay the said amount for the injury sustained by him in his leg. It was also observed that due to permanent disability in vital part of the body the claimant was not able to more freely nor was he in a position to attend to his daily work. In the present case, the learned Counsel has not been able to demonstrate with reference to the evidence that the appellant was not in a position to move freely or to resume his work. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has referred to the decision in A. Jayasankar Vs. Reena Borewell & Anr., of the Madras High Court reported in 2006 A.C.J. 1958 ,. In the said case the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had assessed the loss of 30% in earning capacity where disability was 56%.