Sohanlal vs Kishna Ram And Ors

The case comes up on an application for early hearing of the matter.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard and disposed of finally today itself.

Both the appeals shall stand decided by this common order as the same arise out of the same accident.

The present appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 25/02/2005 passed by the Additional District and Session Judge,

Balotra ( M.A.C.T. Cases, Balotra) in M.A.C. Case No. 57/2003. Vide said judgment and award, injured Sohan Lal has been awarded a sum of Rs. 7

Lakhs to be paid by the Insurance Company along with an interest @ 6%.

Brief facts of the case are that on 12/01/2003, Sohan Lal along with Chandra Ram were going to Desuri by Motorcycle. The said motorcycle was

driven by Chandra Ram and the present appellant Sohan Lal was a pillion driver on the said motorcycle. When they reached the road which passes

from Desuri to Charbhuja, a vehicle TATA 407 having registration No. R.J.19 G 5129, which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver Kishna

Ram, collided with the motorcycle. On account of the injuries suffered by the appellant in this accident, the appellant became disabled having

permanent disability to the extent of 75%. In the circumstances, a claim petition was preferred by the appellant before learned Tribunal and learned

Tribunal after framing of the issues and evaluating the evidence available on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs with an interest @ 6% p.a. vide its

judgment and award dated 25/02/2005. The appellant Sohan Lal has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the award and the Insurance

Company has also preferred the appeal challenging the quantum of the award.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the parties vehemently argued that the fact of accident, the vehicles involved, the offending vehicle insured with the Insurance

Company and the injuries suffered by Sohan Lal in the accident are not in dispute in this case. The only dispute, which is required to be adjudicated in

the present case, is quantum of the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the appellant Sohan Lal submits that the appellant has suffered injuries on his backbone (spinal code) and as per the certificate

issued by Medical Board (Ex.16), he is permanently disabled to the extent of 75% and totally bedridden. He also submits that in fact, the appellant

Sohan Lal is 100% disabled and without assistance of someone, he is unable to complete his day to day affairs. Thus, the amount awarded by the

Tribunal in the present case is on very lower side. He further submits that the condition of injured Sohan Lal continued to be the same and there is no

possibility that the disability suffered by the appellant will improve in future or he will be in a position to complete his day to day affairs without any

assistance but no amount towards the future maintenance of injured Sohan Lal and the assistance to be provided by somebody has been taken into

account while awarding the amount in this case. Learned counsel further submits that the amount awarded towards the pain and suffering to the tune

of Rs. 50,000/- is too less in comparison to the agony suffered by the appellant Sohan Lal in the accident. Thus, he prays for enhancement of the

amount suitably. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Afnees

(Unconsious), he represented through Mother Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vadakara & Ors, 2017(2) ACTC (SC) 1233 and Parminder

Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2019(2) ACTC (SC) 715.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that although an appeal has also been filed by the Insurance Company on multiple

grounds but he is empathetically making the submissions with respect to the quantum of compensation in the present case on account of the fact that

the amount awarded by learned Tribunal is on the higher side and, therefore, the same is required to be recomputed and reduced suitably.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has very fairly submitted that on instructions received from the Insurance Company, he is ready to make

payment of a lump sum amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs to the injured appellant Sohan Lal, in addition to the amount which has already been awarded by

learned Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 25/02/2005.

This proposal of Rs. 4 Lakhs is not agreed to by learned counsel for the claimant/appellant and, therefore, there is no point in making the discussions

further.

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and I have gone through the impugned judgment and award as well as other relevant record of the

case.

It is an admitted position that the injured appellant Sohan Lal has suffered permanent disability in the accident to the extent of 75% which is apparent

from Medical Board Certificate (Ex.P16) and he is totally bedridden and cannot complete his day to day affairs without assistance of any helper.

Learned Tribunal, after having taken into consideration the fact that Sohan Lal was working in a hotel, adjudged the income of the appellant as

Rs.5,000/- per month and considering his 75% permanent disability, an amount of Rs. 7 Lakhs was awarded. The fact that Sohan Lal was 22 years of

age at the time of accident and suffered the injury on the backbone (spinal code) causing thereby 75% permanent disability and virtually bedridden, is

proved beyond doubt in view of the evidence adduced before learned Tribunal. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the claimant/appellant

that he is virtually 100% disabled has force. The appellant Sohan Lal is unable to do anything except lying on the bed and thus the disability to the

extent of 75% can be considered for all intents and purposes as 100% in view of the fact that the appellant Sohan Lal was earning Rs.5,000/- and was

only 22 years of age, the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees : Seven Lakh Only) appears to be on much lower side. The

same, therefore, is required to be enhanced by an additional amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees : Seven Lakh Only) to be paid by the Insurance

Company towards the factors of having suffered disability, pains and suffering and other future medical expenses with an interest @ 6% p.a. from the

date of filing of the claim petition.

In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant Sohan Lal is partly allowed and the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is

dismissed.