IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH MISC. APPEAL No. 1565 of 2020 PRAKASH SINGH Versus SHIVPAL SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Hemant Kumar Shrama, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Monesh Jindal, learned counsel for the respondent [R-3].

Reserved on 29.07.2024 Pronounced on 23.09.2024 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER This miscellaneous appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2019 in MACC No.83/18 by 4th Addl. Member, MACT, Dewas for enhancement of compensation of Rs.10 lakhs.

2. Facts in brief are that appellant/claimant filed an application u/s

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.38 lakhs for permanent physical disability due to negligent driving of the motor vehicle no.MP-41-MV-8392 by respondent no.1 Shivpal, owned by respondent no.2 Nirmal and insured with respondent no.3. The alleged incident occurred on Ist July, 2017 at 14.00 hrs. in front of crematorium of AB Road, Dewas within the jurisdiction of police station, Industrial Area, Dewas regarding which crime no.25/17 was registered. Appellant/claimant Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR preferred claim alleging age as 45 years and income as Rs.65,000/- per annum through the profession of Advocacy as the appellant sustained permanent physical disability despite his treatment in MG Hospital, Dewas, Sanskar hospital, Dewas and personal treatment of Dr.I.K.Sheikh, Dewas.

3. Claim was contested by respondent no.3 alleging breach of conditions of policy and also quantum of compensation. Respondents no.1 & 2 did not contest the case.

4. Tribunal framed a total 7 issues and appellant/claimant examined himself as PW/1, Mohanlal Sharma as PW/2, Balkrishna Pandya as PW/3, Pankaj Yadav as PW/4, Dr.I.K.Sheikh as PW/5 and Sandeep Sharma as PW/6 and adduced the documents Ex.P/1 to P/52. No evidence was adduced by the respondent no.3.

5. Appreciating the evidence tribunal found proved that the date of birth of the appellant /claimant is 12.03.1972 and on the date of Ist July, 2017 he was 45 years 4 months old. Tribunal also found proved that appellant/claimant is Advocate by profession and also found proved that at the time of accident the appellant/claimant was earning Rs.4,12,652/- per annum i.e. Rs.34,387/- per month and also found proved that appellant/claimant sustained 9% permanent physical disability and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,80,700/- in the following heads:

Pain & suffering Rs.25,000/- Medical expenses Rs.43,530/-

Special diet Rs.3,000/- Attendant charges Rs.3,000/- Transportation charges Rs.3,000/-

Loss of future income NIL Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR Loss of income during treatment Rs.1,03,170/- Total Rs.1,80,700/-

6. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that tribunal recorded the permanent physical disability ignoring the certificate Ex.P/49 which certified the permanent disablement of 27% and the income of Rs.4,12,652/- per annum as per para36 of the award. The computation of future loss of earning comes to Rs.14,48,408/-. The tribunal ought to have awarded eight months loss of income to the tune of Rs.2,75,096/-. The tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs.2 lakhs under the head of pain and suffering. The rate of interest of 12% per annum was also claimed.

7. Heard.

8. Counsel for the respondent/insurance company has opposed the enhancement of compensation submitting that tribunal has properly awarded the amount considering the nature of occupation of the appellant as the profession of advocacy did not have impact due to the injury. Appellant/claimant is continuously engaged in legal profession after regaining his health.

9. Perused the record.

10. Firstly the court is re-appreciating the findings of the tribunal regarding percentage of permanent physical disability. Tribunal has recorded in para-42 of the award that permanent