Kaluwa vs Bhagwan Singh and Another

M.C. Sharma, J.—This appeal has been filed by the claimant appellant Kaluwa against the award dated 4.1.2007 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Hindaun City, (in short MACT) in MACT case No. 27/2004 whereby claim petition of the claimant was allowed and he has been granted compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,68,000/-. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence 1 am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

The appellant filed a claim petition in the MACT claiming amount of Rs. 11,63,500/- against the respondent on account of 30.43% permanent disability as he sustained fracture in left hand, right thigh, and below the knee. The appellant remained in the Hospital for about one year and he was admitted eight time and he took treatment and spent lacs of rupees on the treatment. The MACT has passed award of Rs. 1,68,000 on all heads vide its judgment dated 4.1.2007.

The learned counsel for the claimant appellant has argued that the MACT has committed illegality and error of law by not considering that as per the certificate Ex. 59 the appellant had sustained 30.43% permanent disability. The appellant was 40 years of age at the time of accident and awarding Rs. 1,68,00/- only cannot be said to be adequate and proper. The appellant was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month and as per the case decided in the case of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sushamma Thomas, the income was double and then after deducting one third of double income, amount was calculated. Because the appellant was 40 years of age and in future his income would certainly increase, therefore the award passed by the MACT is on very lower side and it should be enhanced. The respondent No. 2 is the registered owner therefore liability should be fastened upon him. The appellant took treatment about one year and he was admitted in hospital as many as 8 times and he spent lacs of rupees on his treatment but the MACT awarded only Rs. 20,000/- against the treatment. The MACT has only awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards physical and mental agony, nutrition which is on lower side. In these circumstances it was prayed that the compensation should be adequately enhanced.

The learned counsel appearing for the vehicle owner has argued that the MACT considered the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 2,000/- per month and for which 30% amount i.e. Rs. 600/- were considered as loss of income and the multiplier of 15 was applied in this manner the MACT awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,08,000/- to the appellant as loss of income. The appellant received three simple injuries and three grievous injuries for which Rs. 20.000/- were awarded. For the purpose of hospital charges and medicine charges a sum of Rs. 20,000/- were awarded. For physical and mental agony and nutrition a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded. Total Rs. 1,68,000/- has been awarded and the amount has already been paid to the appellant. The learned counsel for the vehicle owner argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded and there is further no need to enhance the amount.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the award passed by the MACT. The MACT has not committed any error in treating income of the appellant as Rs. 2,000/- and out of which looking 30 per cent disability Rs. 600/- per month were taken as loss to the appellant towards income and looking to his age multiplier of 15 was allowed. In this manner the appellant has been awarded Rs. 1,08,000/- for the loss of income on disability of 30 %. This amount cannot be said to be on lower side. The MACT awarded Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant for the three simple injuries and three grievous injuries. Rs. 20,000/- were awarded for hospital charges and medicine charges. Rs. 20,000/- were awarded for physical and mental agony. In this manner a sum of Rs. 1,68,000/- has been awarded to the appellant as total compensation. The appellant in these circumstances is not entitled for any further enhancement of compensation. The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation deserves to be rejected. The appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The award of the MACT is confirmed.