Anees Ahmed vs New India Assurance Company And Others

Alok Singh, J

Present appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of the award granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Nainital in MACP No. 160 of 2009 vide judgment dated 10.10.2011

Brief facts of the present case are that on 26.06.2009 at about 06.30 p.m., appellant was coming to Nainital in Tavera car bearing registration no. DL 2T C 0305; near Sheetla Mata Mandir, he stopped his vehicle on his left side and started urinating suddenly driver of truck bearing registration no. UP 02 D 7092 driving the truck rashly and negligently hit the appellant. As a result of accident, appellant received grievous injuries. Appellant filed claim petition, which was partly allowed by the Tribunal against Insurance Company - respondent no. 3 herein. Feeling aggrieved, appellant has approached this Court for enhancement.

Heard Mr. Z. U. Siddiqui, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, Advocate for the Insurance Company - respondent no. 1 and Mr. B. D. Pandey, Advocate for respondent no. 2 - owner of the errant vehicle and perused the record.

Mr. Z.U. Siddiqui, Advocate for the appellant submits that appellant was a driver, therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Minu Rout Vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra reported in 2013 (10) SCC 695, monthly income of the appellant should be assessed as Rs.6,000/- per month and Tribunal was wrong in calculating the loss by assessing his monthly income as Rs.5,000/- per month for the first year and as Rs.2,000/- per month for the next two years. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir and others reported in 2015 (7) SCC 252 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has calculated monthly income as Rs.4,500/- per month on the basis of notification issued by Madhya Pradesh Government under the Minimum Wages Act.

So far first contention of the appellant is concerned, in my opinion, during the course of trial, appellant had not produced any evidence or witness to prove that he was working as driver. Merely having driving license would not mean that he was working as Driver. So far judgment in the case of Minu Rout is concerned, in that case, it was admitted case of the parties that deceased was working as Driver. So the case of Minu Rout (supra) has no application in the present matter.

So far as case of Jakir Hussein (supra) is concerned, in that case minimum wages were considered as 4500/- per month and the Hon'ble Supreme Court treated the disability of Jakir Hussein as 100% permanent disability whereas in the present case, there is no permanent disability and the Tribunal has considered loss of monthly income @ Rs.5000/- per month for the first years and thereafter, for the next two years, loss was calculated @ Rs.2,000/- per month. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has rightly calculated the compensation and no interference is called for.

Accordingly, Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

Let lower court record along with amount, if any, be sent back to the Tribunal concerned.