The judgment emphasizes the importance of obtaining the necessary permission under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act before challenging the quantum of compensation. It also highlights the court's consideration of the extent of injuries and the provision for future treatment and travel expenses in determining the awarded amount.

S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J.

( 1 ) THE above two appeals, one by the insurance company and the other by the claimants have been filed against the award dated 10. 12. 2004 of learned Thirteenth Member, Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim case No. 154 of 2003, by which against the claim of injuries sustained by the claimant sandeep Chanpuria, Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,09,860.

( 2 ) AT the outset, the learned counsel for the claimant, has stressed on a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the appeal at the instance of the insurance company, in which it has challenged the quantum of compensation. Though it is stated that before the Tribunal, an application to seek permission under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the act'), was filed by the insurance company, the insurance company was not granted any such permission, with the result the insurance company cannot challenge the quantum of compensation in the present appeal. The learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that due to inadvertence orders were not passed by the tribunal but the insurance company was permitted participation in the proceedings to raise all the defences, which shows that permission, as required by section 170 of the Act, stood impliedly granted. Reference has also been made to the decision in united India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jyot-snaben Sudhirbhai Patel, 2003 ACJ 2107 (SC), in support of the contention that even if reasons are not recorded, the permission granted is not vitiated.

( 3 ) WE find that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel is quite distinguishable on facts. It is not disputed that in the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jyotsnaben Sudhirbhai Patel, 2003 acj 2107 (SC), the permission had in fact been granted, as required by section 170 of the Act but since reasons had not been recorded, it was challenged that the permission was illegal. It was in this context that their Lordships observed that since the circumstances warranting such permission were present and obtaining on record, mere omission to record them in the order did not vitiate the order. In the case in hand though it is stated that an application was filed to seek such a permission, the permission was never granted and, therefore, there is no warrant for supposing that mere participation of the insurance company on all grounds in the proceedings had the effect of implied permission. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the insurance company cannot be permitted to assail the quantum of compensation. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 691 of 2005, therefore, merits dismissal.

( 4 ) COMING to the appeal filed by the claimant, before us it has not been disputed that the injury was sustained in an accident and it was on account of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of Matador that the accident occurred. The injuries sustained by the claimant had caused multiple fractures in his right leg up to thigh, ribs of both sides, head and other parts of the body. He had become unconscious and in that state, he was admitted to M. Y. Hospital, Indore. He had to be kept on life support system for a long time and was discharged on 2. 11. 1993. Thereafter, he was got admitted to Choithram Hospital, indore where he regained consciousness after 28 days. On account of the fracture, there was an operation of his right leg in which nailing was done and external fixture was provided. He had also lost his teeth. He continued to be in the I. C. U. till 14. 12. 1993 and thereafter in the Surgical ward till 10. 1. 1994. He had to go for further treatment to Bombay very frequently.

( 5 ) CLAIMANT was working on the post of Assistant Marketing Manager, Singhai stones, where he was drawing a salary of rs. 3,000. Considering that there was 55 per cent permanent disablement and his age, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18 to the said percentage and arrived at a figure of rs. 3,56,400 as the loss of incom

Click Here to Read the rest of this document