Shivlal vs Mohd. Lala and Others

P.K. Jaiswal, J.—Heard.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the cross objection filed by the Insurance Company challenging its liability in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol and Others, is barred by time. In respect of the said contention he drew my attention to the acknowledgment by which the notice issued by this Court has been served by the Insurance Company on 12th January, 2011. Inspite of that Insurance Company respondent No. 3 in its cross objection has stated that cross-objection is filed within limitation. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 is claiming that the cross-objection is within time from the date of filing of the vakalatnama on behalf of the Insurance Company. Para 1 to 4 reads as under :

(1) That award is not as per fact law and circumstances of case.

(2) That Respondent No. 1 did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive transport (commercial) vehicle

(3) That the award passed is against the law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol and Others,

(4) That cross objection is filed within limitation.

In view of the above and also the fact admittedly the notice was served to respondent No. 3 on 12th March, 2011 the cross-objection filed by the respondent No. 3 is barred by time and is accordingly dismissed as time barred.

During the course of arguments Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the valuation of this appeal be confined to Rs. 1,04,100/- only. Prayer is allowed. The appeal be, accordingly, amended within a week from today. In view of the amendment made by the State Government on 12th April, 2008, the appellant is directed to pay necessary Court fees on enhanced amount within a period of six weeks from 27th June, 2011. Necessary correction be carried out within a week from the date of order.

Also heard on the question of admission.

This appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 20th February, 2009 passed by the Addl. Member M.A.C.T. Jaora, District Ratlam in claim case No. 147 of 2008, whereby learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant.

It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that appellant was agriculturist and his total disability is around 54%. In respect of the said contention he drew my attention to the Ext. P/25, which is disability certificate and submitted that learned Tribunal committed an error in assessing his disability to the extent of 22%. As per statements of appellant-Shivlal and para 5 of the cross-examination of Dr. S.K. Varun (A.W. 3), it is not in dispute that the treating doctor in his evidence has very categorically admitted that disability of the appellant Shivlal is 22%. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that prior to the date of accident appellant was doing agriculture work and after accident he cannot do the agriculture work in the same way as he used to do prior to the date of accident.

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal on the basis of admission made by (A.W.1) and (A.W.3) assessed the permanent disability of the appellant and submitted that no case for enhancement as prayed by the appellant is made out.

Considering the nature of injuries caused to the appellant and statement of Dr. S.K. Varun (A.W.2), this Court is of the view that permanent disability of the appellant is to the extent of 25%. At the time of accident appellant was working as agriculturist and, therefore, he must be earning Rs. 100/- per day i.e. Rs. 3,000/- per month. The loss of income on the basis of permanent disability comes to Rs. 9,000/- per annum. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, at the time of accident appellant was below 25 years and therefore, multiplier of 18 would be applicable. On applying the multiplier of 18 the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,62,000/- (9,000 x 18; 1,62,000). On the other heads like special diet, conveyance and attendants no amount has been awarded. On this head the amount of Rs. 15,000/- is just and proper compensation. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,77,000/- (1,62,000 + 15,000 = 1,77,000). After deducting a sum of Rs. 72,900/- , the amount already awarded by the Tribunal the appellant is further entitled to receive Rs. 1,04,100/- (1,77,000 - 72,900 = 1,04,100) as compensation. The enhanced amount of Rs. 1,04,100/- shall carry the interest @ of 7.5% per annum.

Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that at the time of accident driver of the offending vehicle having no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. The cross objection of the Insurance Company is rejected as time barred and, therefore, this Court is of the view that Insurance Company is liable to pay the enhanced amount of compensation. With the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent as indicated hereinabove with cost.

Memo be prepared accordingly.