IMPORTANT POINT
Injury in motor accident – Quantum of compensation must be adequate and in consonance with minimum wage prevalent in the area where is an unskilled labourer.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st August, 2023 in Misc. Appeal No.1803 of 2021 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which in turn was preferred against the judgment and order dated 21st June, 2021 passed in Claim Case No.1200314 of 2016 by the 4th Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 25th September, 2016 at 8:45 p.m., the Claimant-Appellant, aged 25 years, was extracting soybean from the thresher machine installed in the tractor of Respondent No.1. The driver of the tractor, Respondent No.2, reversed the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the Claimant-Appellant’s hand went into the thresher machine and, thus, he suffered serious injuries on his hand, shoulder, head, near the ear and other parts of the body. Subsequently, he was taken to Sanyog Hospital in Indore, and upon treatment, his hand was amputated below the elbow.

4. In connection with this incident, on 4th October, 2016, an FIR was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle – Respondent No.2 at Police Station Depalpur under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 287 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The Claimant-Appellant filed an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-, submitting therein that he is the only earning member of his family and due to the amputation, he is unable to carry out his daily routine. He submitted that he was working as a labourer, earning Rs.9,000/- per month at the time of the accident.

6. The Tribunal, by its Judgment and Order, held that the insurance company was liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,76,090/- along with interest @ 6% considering 20% permanent disability suffered by the Appellant and took the Appellant’s income as Rs. 60,000/- per annum on the basis of notional income.

7. Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, the Claimant- Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court on the ground that the Tribunal has incorrectly appreciated the following heads:

a. The permanent disability suffered by the Appellant;

b. Future prospects, and

c. Expenses incurred during the treatment.

8. The High Court, vide the impugned order, enhanced the amount awarded to the Claimant-Appellant with an additional sum of Rs.2,85,600/- towards compensation totalling up to Rs.6,61,690/-. The High Court enhanced the percentage of disability suffered to 40% and as such, the compensation awarded by the High Court was as under:

CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION

9. Yet dissatisfied, the Claimant-Appellant is now before us. The significant points of challenge are as follows:

a. As per the certificate issued by PW2, he has suffered 60% permanent disability, leading to 100% functional disability as he is unable to undertake his occupation as a labourer.

b. His income should be ascertained more than Rs.5000/-, as the minimum wage itself was Rs.6,850/- in 2016.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the Appellant and the functional disability