The sole appellant Jagdish is not satisfied with the quantum

of compensation decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Tonk for permanent disablement of the appellant in a motor
vehicle accident. Hence this appeal.
Ram Kishan Meena stated that he
had gone to take a holy dip at Pushkar alongwith Giriraj and the
appellant Jagdish. At Dolta Mor, they took a lift on Truck
No.HR-36-G-9282. The driver gave them seat in the cabin of the
truck. The truck was loaded with stone chips. Near Dhadholi
Puliya, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver, the truck
turned turtle. The informant and the appellant Jagdish sustained
serious injuries on their body whereas Giriraj Meena lost his life.
the appellant and
Ram Kishan filed separate claim cases for compensation. the appellant
was
awarded Rs.2,50,000/- against his claim of Rs.6,94,000/-.
Learned counsel for the
appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Jagdish Vs. Mohan and Others, reported in (2018) 4 SCC
571, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted the claim of
the appellant’s earning of Rs.6000/- per month as the appellant
was a carpenter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the
amount was not unreasonable or contrary to the realistic
assessment of the situation on the date of accident. Learned
counsel next contends that the Tribunal fell in error in not
awarding any compensation under the head, future prospect,
expenses incurred during treatment, extra nursing meeted out nor
the Tribunal made any apportionment under the head, expenses
for attendant and future treatment. A meager amount was allowed
for pain, suffering and loss of amenities.
Mr. Gaurav Jain learned counsel for the respondent-The New
India Assurance Company Limited contends that since thepassengers,
the driver violated the terms and conditions of the
policy as the policy was carrying risk only to the extent for
carrying goods.
It is well settled that the insurer cannot avoid its
responsibility to pay compensation to the third party who suffered
injuries or death in a motor vehicle accident. If the terms of the
policy was violated by the insured, it would be open for the insurer
to take up the matter under appropriate proceeding for the
recovery, of the paid compensation, from the owner of the vehicle.
After the accident on 30.08.1999 the appellant was referred
to Sadar Hospital, Tonk, where his X-ray was done and X-ray
report dated 31.08.1999 Ex-5 reveals that the appellant had
sustained fracture on upper end of Tibia and Fibula, fracture of 2nd
to 11th ribs of left side, fracture of clavicle, left hand was fractured
and little and index finger were cut.
On 10.05.2000
the appellant was reexamined by the doctor, who found that
theappellant was still unable to stand because of no motor power in
both feet. Knee movement was restricted up to 70%. The
appellant was unable to cross-legged sit and squatting. The
appellant was catheterized because of no control on urination
bladder and bowel. The doctor concluded that the appellant was
having permanent disablement of 90%.
The nature of
disablement of the appellant disclosed in the medical evidence
goes to show that he suffered 100% permanent disablement.
In view of the settled guidelines for assessing compensation
payable to the victim who suffered permanent disability arising out
of the use of motor vehicle, in my view, there was nothing before
the Tribunal to reject the claim of the appellant that he was
earning Rs.3,000/- per month by selling vegetables. Therefore the
multiplicand of Rs.3000X12=Rs.36000/- per annum would be
appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case. Since the
appellant was of 50 years of age at the time of accident, the
correct multiplier would be of 13. Thus, the loss caused to the
appellant’s life was Rs.4,68,000/-. The appellant is entitled for
addition of 25% of future prospect considering his age and settled
principles in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 case.
Besides the aforesaid, Rs.3,00,000/- would be just for pains and
suffers and loss of amenities to the appellant. The appellant would
be entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- as medical expenses incurred by
him. Non-production of vouchers would not mitigate the claim and
the Court is competent to decide the just compensation
considering the nature of injuries found by the doctor. Therefore,
in my view, Rs.2,00,000/- for medical expenses alongwith
Rs.1,00,000/- for attendant would be just for the appellant.
Besides the aforesaid the appellant is entitled for Rs.3,00,000/-
for his future treatment and Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of expectation
in life. Thus, the total payable compensation comes to
Rs.16,85,000/-(in words Rupees Sixteen Lacs and Eighty Five
Thousand only).