RAJESH Vs. DALIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant allegedly suffered a fracture in his right hand and the doctor certify his partial disability at 8%. He filed claim case No. 176/92 and VI th M.A.C.T., Indore awarded him compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. He felt dissatisfied and filed M.A. No. 648/96 asserting that he was entitled to compensation of fixed amount of Rs. 25,000/- u/S. 140(2) irrespective of his 8% disability. His contention was overruled by the First Appellate Court. He has now filed this L.P.A. in a repeat exercise.

(2.) All that remained to be seen was whether Appellant was entitled to statutorily fixed amount of Rs. 25,000/- though his disability was partial and not permanent. The answer will depend upon the interpretation of Sections 140 and 142 of M.V. Act. Relevant portions of these sections are extracted hereunder for proper appreciation:-

(3.) A plain reading of these provisions shows that Section 140(1) provides for liability of the vehicle owner in certain cases on the principles of no fault where the motor accident had resulted only in death or permanent disablement of the accident victim. Sub-section 2 fixes the amount of compensation in such cases at Rs. 25,000/-. Similarly Section 142 illustrates "permanent disablement and says it shall be deemed to have resulted if such person had suffered injury/injuries involving permanent privation of the sight of either eye or hearing of either ear or (b) privation of any member or joint or (e) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint or permanent disfiguration of the head or face. As would be seen the emphasis is on permanent. The legislative intent was thus clear to provide fixed compensation on no fault principle only in certain cases including permanent disability to the accident victim of the nature described in Section 142. Such compensation was not naturally awardable mechanically in all cases of injury irrespective of whether these resulted in permanent disablement or not. Where the injury was minor causing only partial disability and not a permanent one the injured cannot claim the fixed amount of compensation as a matter of right. It was perhaps in this context that first appellate Court had referred to 100% disability to convey that it should be permanent.