AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri Dhiman Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for Appellant / Insurance Company and Shri Vishwa Gadbaile, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 / original claimant. None appears for respondent No.2 / vehicle owner.
At the outset, it is submitted that on 21/03/2023, this Court passed the judgment in First Appeal No.12/2010 and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darwha granted appropriate compensation to the respondent No.1 / cross-objector.
The respondent No.1 / claimant has filed Cross-Objection No.1/2011 in First Appeal No.12/2010 (decided on 21/03/2023) claiming that the compensation granted by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darwha in MACP No.113/2006 is inadequate and it is without considering the future need of medical expenses.
The learned counsel appearing for the cross-objector / original claimant canvassed that the learned Tribunal failed to award sufficient and appropriate compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- and only granted meagre amount of compensation of Rs.3,40,768/-.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company strongly resisted the application on ground that though the cross-objector had filed Claim Petition No.113/2006, however, the cross-objector / claimant has not raised any pleading about the requirement of future medical treatment or to meet future medical expenses.
The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darwha considered the claim of the cross-objector and had granted compensation of Rs.3,40,768/- including the expenses incurred for medical treatment, loss of income, injuries sustained to the claimant as well as the compensation under other heads like; mental shock, agony, etc. Therefore, the cross-objector / original claimant has not made out substantial ground to enhance the compensation, hence prayed for dismissal of the cross-objection.
Needless to say that the cross-objector has filed Claim Petition No.257/2000 (re-registered as Claim Petition No.113/2006) on the ground that, on 11/05/1991, the respondent No.2 had engaged him being driver on Maruti Van No.MP-09 B-6838 to visit at Nagpur. He was accompanied by Sushil Rajabhau Gandhewar, the brother of respondent No.2, however, while returning from Nagpur, on 12/05/1991 at dead hours, said vehicle given dash to the Neem tree and he sustained permanent disability.
The cross-objector / claimant claimed that he was a skilled labour and was earning Rs.100/- per day. Besides that, he was getting Rs.20/- towards Bhatta per day. In Para No.9, the present cross-objector claimed Rs.3,000/- per month income.
The cross-objector further claimed that, at the time of accident, he was 40 years old, therefore, the multiplier 16 is applicable. He further prayed for compensation of Rs.20,000/-under the head of mental shock, agony, pains and suffering as non-pecuniary damages and Rs.5,76,000/- towards the pecuniary and medical expenses.
On 05/08/2009, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darwha passed the Judgment and Award holding that, the cross-objector / claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,40,768/- under all heads including pecuniary loss, medical expenses and non-pecuniary damages. The cross-objector / claimant has not filed an independent appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. However, he has filed Cross-Objection under Order 41 Rule 22 Sub-Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking enhancement of compensation under the head of future medical expenses.
On perusal of the pleadings as well as evidence available on record, it does depict that, the cross-objector / claimant is required to incur future medical expenses towards his ailment. The pleadings and evidence placed on record does not suggest that, the objector / claimant is in need of future medical treatment.
Needless to say that, the cross-objector / claimant himself pleaded that, due to head injury, he was mentally abnormal but after taking treatment for 6 – 7 years, he was feeling as a normal person. Therefore, it appears that there is no need to provide future medical treatment to the objector / claimant. On 21/03/2023, this Court passed judgment in First Appeal No.12/2010 and dismissed the appeal of the Insurance Company holding that the learned Tribunal has awarded appropriate compensation.
Therefore, I do not find that the cross-objector / claimant has set out the substantial and bonafide grounds for enhancement of compensation.
In view of the above, cross-objection No.1/2011 stands dismissed.