1996 Supreme(MP) 1350

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A.S. TRIPATHI, T.S. DOABIA, JJ.
Chhaya (Ku.) - Appellant
Vs.
State of M.P. - Respondents
M.A. No. 18 of 1996 (G)
Decided On : 11-10-1996

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – S. 168 and 142 – permanent deformity in knee of a girl child – Rs. 25,000/ – should be the compensation besides medical expenses.

        Short Note

       1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 22.12.1995 passed by the First Additional Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri giving an award of Rs. 5,000/ – as compensation to the appellant with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from the date of the application i.e. 11.10.1989. Cost was also awarded.

       2. The appellant had put a claim under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for injuries caused to her which amounted to permanent disability. According to the contention raised by the appellant, on 8.4.1989 a Jeep No. CPZ/2686 was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 3 and dashed against her causing injury to her knee. A criminal case under sections 279 and 337 IPC was registered in which a fine of Rs. 5,000/ – was awarded against respondent No. 3.

       3. The appellant claims that on account of the injuries caused to her knee, she had suffered a lot of pain and was admitted in the hospital to three months. Her leg is still not in order and it has resulted in permanent disability for the whole of her life. Still she is under treatment and according to her Rs. 15,000/ – has been expended for medical treatment. The appellant claims Rs. 2,80,000/ – as compensation.

       4. The claim was contested on various grounds, denying the involvement of the said jeep in the accident. The trial Court after framing the necessary issues recorded a finding that the accident took place on 8.4.1989 with the aforesaid jeep which was driven by respondent No. 3 rashly and negligently. The trial Court, however, recorded a finding that there was no permanent disablement and awarded only a compensation of Rs. 5,000/ – for the medical expenses and mental agony.

       5. The first point raised in this appeal was as to whether the injury caused to the appellant had resulted in permanent disability. On this point, the statement of Dr. S.C. Goyal (PW 2) is very material. The doctor stated that the left knee of the appellant was injured and she was admitted in the hospital for medical treatment. This doctor had treated the appellant from 17.6.89 to 23.6.89 and proved the prescriptions Ex. P/61. Then the matter was referred to the District Hospital, Shivpuri where the appellant was treated by Dr. M.P. Barua (PW 4). This doctor stated on oath that he had found two injuries on the knee of the appellant who was a girl child of only about 2 1/2 years at the time of accident. He proved the medical report Ex. P/62.

       6. Ultimately, Dr. P.K. Pathak (PW 5) who had treated the appellant in District Hospital, Guna was examined. The appellant was admitted in the said hospital. PW 5 Dr. Pathak attended her from 1.8.89 to 6.8.89 and found that her left knee was injured seriously in this accident. There was deformity of 15% in movement of the knee and this type of deformity was on account of regressive nature. According to the statement of the doctor, this deformity is extended to 18% and affected the left knee of the appellant of 15 (degree) and this type of deformity was permanent which could raise to 20% of the deformity. The doctor was cross – examined but he was firm on the point that the injury caused on the left knee to the girl child resulted in permanent deformity to the extent of 20% in the movement of the knee and the said deformity was not likely to improve even after the treatment.

       7. In view of the statement of Dr. Pathak, the prescriptions filed on record and x – ray report, the movement of left knee was permanently affected and particularly of a girl child which could not be cured even in future. 20% deformity in the movement was found and was not likely to be cured even after treatment. This type of deformity in the movement of knee was definitely a permanent disablement as provided under section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 142 of the Act reads as under :

       "142. Permanent disablement – For the purpose of this Chapter, permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in sub – section (1) of S. 140 if such person has suffered by reason of the accident, any injury or injuries involving : –

       (a) permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint; or

       (b) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint; or

       (c) permanent disfiguration of the head or face."

       8. In such a case, the minimum amount of compensation, as held in the cases of Mahendra Prasad Mishra v. Mohd. Sabbir (1994 ACJ 942) and Suresh Babu Nath v. Hargovind Batham (1995 ACJ 654), shall be Rs. 25,000/ – .

       9. Besides this, learned counsel for the appellant placed on record the medical bills that she had spent about Rs. 1,500/ – for her treatment and that has to be added to that amount.

       10. The Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant on the ground of permanent disablement which was proved on record. Therefore, the just and proper amount of compensation would be Rs. 26,500/ – in this case. We therefore allow the appeal and direct that an amount of Rs. 26,500/ – shall be paid to the appellant as compensation with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum on the same from the date of the application i.e. 11.10.1989 till the date of payment. Cost of this appeal and the claim petition shall also be paid to the appellant. The judgment and order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above.