LexSUNIL KUMAR versus RAM SINGH GAUD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I 1 ~ , A SUNILKUMAR v. RAM SINGH GAUD AND ORS. NOVEMBER 2, 2007 B [ASHOK BHAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] ~ -I._ Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: c S.166 and Schedule II to s.163-A-Compensation for loss of earning due to permanent disability-Collision between two vehicles- Driver of mini truck sustaining grievious injuries resulting in 45% permanent disability-MA CT allowing Rs.45,0001- as compensation for 45% permanent disability, cost of treatment and towards pain and D mental agony-High Court dismissing appeal of claimant-HELD: ..>( Tribunal as well as High Court have not awarded any compensation ~ towards loss of future income-After fracture of tibia, it is doubtful if the appellant can even drive again-Disability suffered by appellant would surely reduce earning capacity-Therefore, appellant is required E to be compensated for loss of earning due to irif uries suffered by him in accident-Taking into consideration present income of appellant as Rs.4,0001- per month minus I/3rd deduction towards miscellaneous expenses, the permanent disability of 45% suffered by him, appellant being 29 years old at the time of accident, and taking multiplier to be F 18, total loss of income comes to Rs.2,59,2001- for which appellant would be entitled in addition to the sum already awarded by the Tribunal-He would be entitled to interest at the same rate i.e. 6% per annum on the enhanced amount as well from the date of filing claim petition till realization. G CIVIL APPELLATE nJRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5108 of 2007. -'-:-+-' From the final Judgment and Order dated 12.10.2004 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in M.A. No. 2728 of2004. H 876 SUNIL KUMAR v. RAM SINGH GAUD Tara Chandra Sharma (SCLSC), for the Appellant. Santosh Paul (for M.J. Paul) for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered by ORDER 1. Leave granted. 877 A B 2. Factual background of the case is that on 10th July, 2003, appellant was driving his mini truck No.MP 20 G-7705 towards Bargi ' along with one Ran1esh Prajapati. When the mini truck reached Chulha C Gulhai, a tmck dumper bearing No. MP 18-6392 came from the opposite side, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner and hit the mini truck of the appellant with the result that the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his leg. He suffered three fractures including one at tibia. He was examined by the Medical Board. After exanlining the injuries, Board came to the conclusion that the appellant had suffered 45% pennanent D disability. Appellant was 29 years of age at the time of accident and was working as a driver and earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. 3. FIR was lodged. A claim was also filed against the owner of truck dumper as well as the insurance company before the Motor Accident , E Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 (for short 'the Act'), inter alia, , stating that in the accident, appellant suffered fracture in his tibia and two other places. Appellant claimed Rs. 8,20,000/- by way of compensation. / 4. Tribunal by its order dated 25th June, 2004 awarded a F compensation ofRs.45,000/- for the 45% pennanent disability suffered · by the appellant; Rs.21,000/- towards the amount spent on the treatment and Rs.6,000/- for physical pain and mental agony suffered by the appellant. Tims, a total sun1 ofRs.72,000/-was awarded as compensation , G along with interest@6% per annum from the date of the claim petition -1.... till payment 5. Being aggrieved, appellant filed an appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur which has been dismissed by the impugned ' order. H .... 878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. ____, , --, A 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that as a result of the impact of injuries suffered by the appellant, the appellant cannot pursue his vocation of driving any longer and the Tribunal as well as the High Court have grossly erred in not awarding any compensation towards the loss of his earning capacity. That, keeping in view the injuries suffered B by him, the compensation awarded is too low. Counsel appearing for the r- Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Respondent No.3, has supported ~ the judgment and order passed by the courts below. 7. Learned counsels for the parties have been heard at length. c 8. We find substance in the submission put forth by t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.