Kalawati vs Munnalal and Others

Abhay Gohil and Rajendra Menon, JJ.—This is claimant''s appeal for enhancement of compensation u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award dated 1.7.2000 passed by Eighth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 152 of 1996.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-claimant herein is working in the Defence Laboratory and was getting salary Rs. 5,800 per month in the year of 1995. On 27.9.1995 at about 6 p.m. when she was coming back to her house from duty, outside of Roopsingh Stadium one truck No. UMO 8451, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, came from behind, did not blow any horn and dashed the appellant. As a result of this accident she received crush injuries in her right hand and in the left leg. She was taken to Police Station, Padav, where F.I.R. was lodged and thereafter she was admitted in the J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior, where she remained hospitalised up to 29.9.1995. Thereafter, she remained hospitalised in Verma Nursing Home, Agra where she was treated by Dr. V.K. Singhal and Dr. R.K. Verma from 29.9.1995 to 21.10.1995. But on 3.10.1995 because of gangrene her right hand was amputated above elbow. She also received fracture in left leg and because of this fracture in the knee the left leg also became weak and she is unable to walk properly. She filed claim petition for claiming compensation. The claim was contested. The Claims Tribunal after recording the evidence of both the parties recorded a finding that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the truck driver and Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000.

There is no dispute about the accident as well as about the liability of the insurance company. The claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. The only question involved in this appeal is as to what would be the just and proper compensation to be awarded to the appellant for the injuries suffered in the accident.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

There is no dispute that because of the accident there was amputation of the appellant''s right hand above elbow. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000 in the head of treatment expenses towards the medical bills submitted by the appellant. Admittedly, the bills of Rs. 53,000 were submitted before the Tribunal and including the special diet the Tribunal has awarded total amount of Rs. 75,000 in this head. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 in the head of pain and suffering and Rs. 1,00,000 for permanent disability and also for employing the service of one servant, which is just and proper, as the appellant is still in the employment and getting the same salary. Mr. Sanjay Behrani, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for the injuries suffered by the injured in the left leg and has also not awarded any compensation for the conveyance charges for attending the office in future, as because of the injury in the left leg the appellant is unable to walk properly. Though there is no evidence on record to show what is the percentage of injury in the left leg, considering this evidence that there was fracture in the left leg and as per medical certificate, Annexure P60, that the appellant''s left knee joint is very stiff and flexion cannot be done and she cannot run and squat too, we further enhance the award and award compensation of Rs. 50,000 for the injury suffered in the left leg.

So far as the claim of the appellant for awarding compensation towards the conveyance charges, the same has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal, as she is not entitled for any conveyance charges. Normally, a government servant is never paid any charges for approaching the office except conveyance allowance. She might be receiving conveyance allowance from the office, therefore, no additional conveyance allowance would be payable to the claimant because of the aforesaid injury. We also hold that in some of the heads the Tribunal has already awarded excess compensation but it will not be proper for this Court to reduce the aforesaid amount without the appeal of the insurance company.

Thus, considering the submissions and material placed on record, we further award compensation of Rs. 50,000 and enhance the compensation from Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 2,50,000. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of appeal. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500.

Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.