Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 122 of 2003 Appellant :- Mohammad Ali Respondent :- Shiv Babu And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Avdhesh Chandra Nigam,Rakesh Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.C.Nigam, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company.
By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 21.10.2002 passed by District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaushambi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 83 of 2002.
The claimant-appellant preferred M.A.C.P. No. 83 of 2002 claiming a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- with interest. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- only with 9% rate of interest.
The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence is decided in favour of the appellant herein. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them by the Tribunal. The only issue to be decided is the quantum.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the disablement of the appellant which he has suffered due to serious injuries in his upper and lower limbs. It is submitted that there is nailing in his left leg and, therefore, under the head of pain, shock and suffering, he would be entitled to additional amount as he has suffered disability up to 50%.
It is submitted by Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant that the total enhancement to Rs.50,000/- would be just which learned counsel for the respondent has objected and has made his submission that there is no functional disability and the Tribunal has rightly considered granting Rs.50,000/- for the period he was deprived of his normal work. The appellant was an electrician and he still continues to do the work of an electrician.
While recording a finding, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any amount under the head of pain, shock, suffering and good diet. As there is nailing in the left leg, at least under the head of pain shock and suffering, he would be entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/-.
I think Rs.50,000/- an additional amount may be granted to a person of 25 years of age who had been held to have 50% disability, however, it is not proved what the functional disability would be and, whether it had depleted his income, however, if his income even in the year 1999 is considered to be Rs.1,000/- in a small village, he would be entitled to a further sum of Rs.25,000/- as future income. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of future income which is bad. However, as he was in the hospital, actual loss of income will also have to be granted. The appellant was an electrician by profession as there was nailing it is not known that how long he had remained with plaster, a rough period of three months be considered and, hence, Rs.75,000/- additional is awarded as just compensation i.e. (Rs.30,000/- for pain shock and suffering plus Rs.25,000/- for future loss of income and Rs.20,000/- under other heads).
The appeal is partly allowed. The amount be deposited with interest at the rate of 9% from the filing of the claim petition till 2003 and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019/DKS