Appeal against motor accident compensation award dismissed. Court upheld Tribunal's lower award, finding claimant's own negligence in sitting on full load of bricks at his own risk negated basis for enhancement.
Appeal dismissed; Tribunal's award of Rs.40,000/- remains unreduced and unrevised.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
^&
OF
AT
^nn^2 S'-c^ J^-» '^ .-^P^h^^i.i'^a^•^riCT-h3 .CT-LB^**. J ^ <*n 3Hs^^"in'^^.I'fLtf.; S &uc: i l^ Ifctf^;hr?i 5 3 ^ .^ritO^in3 '] ^ ~^^ ^RSi?^^I^h-^ ^S-Cri? ^S-r^^ 3 S : ^ lli r^-,^^ [ML_U,
(C.i
of.2007
nhh^foisi^lsil
t/^rR^
Surendra Kumar Sahu snd Other
Post for O^.-09-2008
Sd/-
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge
M <&>''te®'j^"^!^ ^ss>^. ~ .£:
^y'
| "o o <' ""s (:o ^: £ :: |
3 ^ f f 1. ) (II (tlxo3 <B :3 (Q ("»- 3" <1) ^s (/) (A "0 o -.3 ^ ^- u o3 ;-i" '..y tt) (Q s:i- °, cr wo Q |
<[ ( <s < Q s < . ° G s^ C c ^,, (1r s oa : t" ^ ( g 2o <: 1; |
> Q a.' B » » /')o o 6. Npww ? ) >i l. n ^ ..^ 1^ . - 3- J: T B j . > I> |
(11 ffl -a 6 ;'J S.'l. <B :3s' o M ® ;:r (C D- <y Q ai—^ Q "••tt f-i* "J' (o s> S9 ^.sa. --1 3 a>^ |
f . < • . t , f "f < B : . S S n v ^ ( |
S) ^ a. .1. &' [1o. M :» o o Q .;.] 0i ^i "i"® ao :i b'^ w > o3 % ;0 M tl.o 0 ) Q > ^a ^ .J' [• |
f) <JS) (/) n> o ""••:"[ Sf"^ s^oo i:;L tt> ;";i 1~"»- af .^s <tt VI <a :^f .uA s° -o© fll :3 <;£) ^H^ Vi B)cr ,e-j; 'Cf '•<„ |
"Ss1 oo €i. (II '."3 ll"-*" (/) I':') 3 I;/) a^ ^s B> co >1> o Q- ,OT ?!Rs» a> ;3o®. ""^1 o ".^" ^.f r. :3 E) 3' s> i.n |
0o3 "u ff :::( a o ^ :: B •3 w <1 O :; < • b Q . o 'Z S °-' § c |
il J» > 3 ^ o > . > o ) Moo y D n > - . t> i B ^1 . » |
:^r" w (/) w•a "0 (B iB :T <0 sa 3 !B ::'j © .^ :s' fi)3oa) 3 tl> •;3 o •"••l'> |
(B (() ffltl. o3 (•"?* ^r (fj >0 l^ 'a. tu f^t- ili cr' Mo |
XI •-< (O (.fl Ci)"^ (n &i ^j' •y r?' '-I "*"t "-:<i m <s < fl> ^^ a> 5 Ti'.O s.f0^ ""1i & 5 Bi ^ ^. o ®;ci' §° o S i 2 ®..^ -N S.. °?; o' d ('[> -' '<•? £; s- ,."i 3 "" '(i> o- S <T)' 3 !B iII z 3-i£; O M O^ -e»,»V^- (j) -» c e» S. Ki |
,»:A ""t-1 r-^ •:y o 10 !>•) > 'Q. f^ "os !u 0' ;? §- CT S g » «'' °•§ o? "- < H' S u ro .B) <li "n o B)3" ffl 31 (Q l/th> (...(• M' Si' Q ^3 o ?> <" 5 BS <» B) U) <:!. o al 3" 'o fl> K XI o:f •-it 3 "'s 3" < 0 ffl o. 1B ;T o <p ;>•;; >B </>il. o o s:3a |
m t" ('s> r" ?' niw^" <Q T-i (y K:: Q. 3 B) a> i y> ;'.» s> M ^S' oo c: sM y> cn g C 3 3 < B> fl) "".i '"K flj :3i |
fi.i i~: 3 <S3 "t> £L «Q nS ®ul Q.. a> ?II M 01 '® §• B) w ::'.r . l —• w o ^: fi) "'i ^ i> !o iU cS ov S K-" .5)' c: "'o 3- £O' i^ g. .2 3 l^?IB- 'o y M i"; ia •< .u; " <B "' Q. a> ":' o ;s o' ^5'§. W^ ^- Ef ;^ s' 11) (0 s ro §•&>si- <S- E: OT o <a. d Q '^ &1 (B |
2 o ^A o |
3 o 0- rtt w °»s' "I g "0 XI ftlo e> a> •:r gc K' sr |
> .-)-t m Q>',» 3::'f ,-) |
|---|
\v. ^;
^f-'"'\s ••i3EQ??,ft^i'^1 •?'"•,i;3U'..to.,-.&f -^-A^i %? Ai-.-SA'i^-i-siilSll QJ 1 n^..-iU-—s irf-.^wW^,^...'^i'^n^ ^k.^,i,IiS )-,'i<''?~i-?-i.'-i,".:^4'i ^SP^HU^fU i^O.MA 'iw-^-i.^i-i/Qi i¥Si .""?OT fhe Tractor Trolley was carrying ful! load of bncks in the trolley. Ths apoeiSanVciaimant was seated on ths !oad of bricks in ths troiiev. Due to the rash and negiigent drivlng by the respondent No.l/ciriver, She troiley furned turtle. The appellant/c'aimant sustained grisvous injuries In ths risht !eg rssulting in permanent disabi'ity of 41 %.
'[^!/ n i'S y^.-f^^nQt ^V"tip Jn^-^nnJ?CJspUlS]"'?r.-^ ^^iHS'EA>^T^ '^^IHSBtL/^ -^^^&,^'^1SppSSi^ ?^\prST^ffSQ"^^.?-^ni w^/^-..r^ I^.'LQV^ 4'^iftIHS ^i'e^pOHQSHL ^^ ?^^'~^ "^ ^ir'^3^-n No.2/ownsr (MA.(C.)No.S8 of 2008) sgalnst the impugned awaixl was dismlssed as barrsd bv iimitation. Learned counse! for resoondent No.2/owner siso did not disguts the findina reco'ded bv ths Tribunai that the appelianfclaimant had sustained 41 % permanent disability due to the grisvous injuries to ths right ieg in the acddent. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards expensss incurred in trsatnient, Rs.2,000/- towards sxpenses in future treatmsnts. Rs.3,000/- towards expenses of an attendant during hospitalization and Rs.30,000/towards permanent disability syffered by the claimant, in alt Rs.40,000/to ths appeliant'c'simant agalnst the respondent No.2/owner and rsspondent No.l/drivei-.
(4) Shri Manoj Parsnjpe, leamsd counssi for ths s;ppe"ant argued that the Tribuna! ouaht to havs aopli°d muitiDlier method ror awardina compensation in a case of permanent dfeability. ReHance was placed on % O. vs. M/s. ComroS Pvt. Ltd. snd others^ reported in A!R Supreme Court 755 and Shiv Kiimar & Otfiers vs. Maleshram^. reported in 2006(3} C.6.L.J. 3SO..It was urged that taking the daily income of ths appeilant/claimant at Rs.80/- as admitted by tiim and multiplied by 28 working days and also by 12, ths total yeariy
l:^
psCT
income of the appellant/claimant shou'd have been assessed' at Rs.26,880/-. Since the appeilant'ciaima.nt was agsd 40 years, applylng muffipHer of 17, the total income of the appe'iant/cialmant ought to have been calculated at Rs.4,56,9SO/- and 41% of t'ne said amount i.e., Rs.1,87,354.'- ought to have been awardsd bes'dss co.mpensation under other conventional heads "Pain and SufTering", "Specia' Dief stc.
(5) On the othsi' hand, iearned counse! for rsspondents No.2/owne" argued that the appellant/c'aimant had sustained injury due to his own neg!igence because he was s'ffing on the fuil !oad of bricks in the Trol'ey at hi?> FAA/H Tiski^1,^ iR^TRrftnr;s^ 'i 'w' 3 lw7i S'uf^/ Vi.'?3S^LV <rfl-^J' r/??sdp>^ i ^/^^S^ tD5i^/ !i?sr;?s^i,*l ^i. 7^8; V^ SK^ ofS^/i fhsi-S i^ ?.tia-^fu£sntl^ li^ L'^^'fl ^ ! ^/ i i ii of^a/^ ths^i J'-^' UidiHlsii'iLIA ^ft-^^T:/^'^W?'HCH l^3^ SS-^^ ^HQSi.'' TT^^^-'^'
'H 7—^tci ^ ^ui'i ^T^'?? ^t ftcliq?^ '^'^ ^TC sfiTT t^ &t. ^sfi ^N ^T?T'^Tt'^'^ WS-T l^ &•!'. Effl ^^WwW, ^iaclid. WRT®r^ST STT ! ^g: q?SI f^ 'ff '^icfl 4 'I^T S.T7 i '^T^t TT? ~^S ~^ yu' -^*f 1 swft ^qTf ^ fSp^rft TR t^T ®rri
S—'ZTs<Tst t f^i ^Tc'iSt'~^ clcft^TM'3^'^' ^5Pl! i&i <s"n €^^ -ir l!mi g !<» —s.c !J^I .-.-nWt.Tl '?TZtT S-Ti. ti'Mcp ?Ru['t?' "HT t ^?< ^'5 TnTT %[T
Referencs was a!so msde to para 2 of the statement of the respondent No.l/drivsr which is as under:-
W£cTrcTA.^ ^SF) v, TfSv', ^^T &TT, 3PRT ?5W -A< ^rar TiCTi 4!4il I ^ic'i>{
It was also urged that a cross olsjsction was prsferrec! by the respondent No.2/owner in th's appea! against ths impugned award.
(6) Learned counsei for respondent No.S/insurer argued in suppcrt of the impugned award.
• —
••1. '"»
4
(7) Having heard rival submissions, i have perused the reco'd. So far as the cross objection preferred by the respondent No.2/owner is concerned, it cannot be considered in this appeai firetly because of reiection of the apDea! Dreferred bv ths respondent No.2/ownar as barred by 'imitaSion and 'astiy because the cross objectlon was no* taken within time prescribed by law. In this appeai, it is not in disputs that due to ths accident, the appeilant/claimant had sustained grievous injuries in the riyht ieg resuiting in 41 % permanent disabi'ity in the right teg. The only questlon that arises for determinatlon in this appeal is whether the compensat'on awarded by the Tribuna! deservss to be enhanced despite the fsct that the claimant had suffersd permanent disabiiity due to his own rash and negligence act. The claimant had admitSed in para 8 that passengers are not carried in the trolley. He aiso admitted that the troiley was carrying Tui! 'oad of bricks and that he was sittina on the load of bricks at his own risk. He did not depose that respondent No.l/driver of the Tractor had asked him to sit on the brick !oad in the trol'ey. The testimony of rsspondent No.l/driver-Surendrs Kumar Sahu thsf he had asked the claimantChhotelal not to sit on the tro]!ey is wholly iinrebutted in crossexamination. it is thus c'ear that the aooellant/ciaimant at his own responslbiHty took ths risk of sitting on ths fuiiy loaded bricks in the trolley dsspite bsing prohiblted by the^ driver. Thsrefore, in my considered oDinion. in such a situation enhancement of comDensation awarded bv the Tribunai is uncalted for.
(8) In the resu't, the appeal being devo'd of any merit is dismissed.
Sd/DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge
; ;.;'";3"S
2 issues framed by the court
whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced given the claimant's own negligence
whether enhancement of compensation is called for when the injured party sat on the load at his own risk
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
% O. vs. M/s. ComroS Pvt. Ltd. snd othersDistinguished¶18
% O. vs. M/s. ComroS Pvt. Ltd. snd others^ reported in A!R Supreme Court 755
Shiv Kimar & Others vs. MaleshramDistinguished¶18
Shiv Kiimar & Otfiers vs. Maleshram^. reported in 2006(3} C.6.L.J. 3SO..
Misri Ram & Others
Surendra Kumar Sahu
Respondent No.2/owner
Respondent No.3/inurer
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
