Jagji vs Assistant Engineer and Another

P.K. Lohra, J.—The appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, ''the Act of 1988''), for enhancement of quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (for short, "the learned Tribunal"). Before the learned Tribunal, in all, 13 claims were laid for claiming compensation arising out of the same accident including the claim of the appellant. The learned Tribunal adjudicated all the claims by a common award dt. 18th of December 1999.

Scorning the facts in detail, the brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that on the fateful day of 8th June 1991, when appellant with other co-passengers was travelling in the vehicle of third respondent, bearing No. RJR 7260, the said vehicle met with an accident due it its rash and negligent driving and that resulted in injuries to the appellant as well as other co-passengers.

As per the version of the appellant in the claim petition, due to occurrence of the accident, he suffered simple injuries and fracture of his right 4th to 7th ribs. The claim petition was contested by the respondents refuting all the averments contained in the claim petition.

The learned Tribunal, after examining the matter in its entirety and considering the evidence and other materials on record, partly allowed the claim petition of the appellant and allowed him compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,000/- only against the total claim of Rs. 1,09,000/-.

The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Manoj Joshi, has vehemently argued that assessment of the compensation by the learned Tribunal in light of injuries suffered by the appellant is grossly inadequate and therefore, the amount of compensation deserves enhancement. Mr. Joshi submits that the appellant in his deposition has proved his entire case and has been able to make out a strong case for reasonable compensation, but the learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation has not cared to examine the oral as well as medical evidence tendered by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant was working as a labourer for earning his livelihood and due to the accident he remained idle for more than three months, and the accident has also impaired his efficiency as a labourer, but the learned Tribunal has not allowed any compensation under the head "future loss of income". Thus, the sum and substance of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded to the appellant is not commensurating with the injuries suffered by the appellant, and in total defiance of its ill effects on his future loss of income.

Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents have submitted that the appellant has suffered simple fractures of ribs and as such the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just, which calls for no enhancement. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, no serious injury was suffered by the appellant resulting in his disablement, and therefore, no interference with the impugned award is warranted.

I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, perused the impugned award and the other materials on record.

From a bare perusal of the MLC Report of the appellant, it is amply clear that the appellant suffered multiple fractures of 4, 5, 6 & 7th ribs and the callus formation was suggestive of more than three weeks duration. The fractures of ribs and other injuries suffered by the appellant cannot be termed as serious injuries by any stretch of imagination. Although the injuries are not of serious nature, but these injuries compelled the appellant to sit idle for approximately 3-4 weeks, depriving him from earning his livelihood as a labourer. The appellant was in his prime youth and on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident, he also suffered acute pain and mental agony. Therefore, considering the facts in totality, in my opinion, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves enhancement to meet the ends of justice. For future loss of income and pain & agony, some additional amount of compensation is required to be awarded to the appellant in the given circumstances.

On objective assessment, in my view, the appellant is entitled for additional amount of Rs. 7,000/- only under these heads. Thus, the amount of compensation is enhanced for a sum of Rs. 23,000/-. The net result of the above discussion is that this appeal is allowed in part, and the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant is hereby enhanced and he is declared entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,000/- only. The respondents are directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the appellant within two months from today.