IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 2^nd OF MAY, 2023 MISC. APPEAL No. 2823 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGER/A.O. LEGAL HUB JABALPUR SUNDER KUMAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS DIVISIONAL OFFICE 290/C NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI UMA SHANKAR TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. LALMAN SHAH @ LALMAN SAHU S/O SHRI AMRITLAL SHAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: VEGETABLE TRADER THROUGH REPRESENTATIVE DILIP SAHU S/O LALMAN SAHU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O VILLAGE HARVAH, POST POLICE STATION SINGRAULI M.P. PRESENTALY R/O THROUGH SUNIL RAJ LADHIYA MOHALLA BEHIND OLD POST OFFICE P.S.- GARHA, DISTRICT- JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. DASHRATH SINGH S/O SHIVLOCHAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AUTO DRIVER R/O SARSAVAH RAJA JAYANT P.S. JAYANT DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SMT. ASHA SINGH W/O DASHRATH SINGH R/O SARSAVAH RAJA JAYANT P.S. JAYANT DISTRICT SINGRAULI M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI KAPIL PATWARDHAN – ADVOCATE ON CAVEAT )

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following: ORDER This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dated 04.04.2022 passed by Member, 28^th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in MACC No.1800272/2015.

2. The only ground which has been raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 14 but the multiplier of 13 should have been applied.

3. By referring to paragraph No.26 of the award, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that in the MLC the age of the claimant was mentioned as 50 years whereas in the disability certificate, Ex.P/92 the age of the claimant was mentioned as 44 years. It is submitted that the disability certificate was prepared subsequent to the MLC, therefore, the age mentioned in the disability certificate should not have been accepted and once the claimant was 50 years or more at the time of MLC, then the multiplier of 13 should have been applied. Further excessive compensation has been awarded under other customary heads. 4. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the claimant that the age mentioned in the disability certificate was rightly taken into consideration.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The MLC report is Ex.P/4 which was prepared on 16.10.2014. In this MLC report the age of the claimant has been mentioned by the Doctor as 50 years whereas in the disability certificate, Ex.P/92, the age of the claimant has been mentioned as 44 years. Both the documents were prepared by the doctors. Therefore, there is no good reason to disbelieve the age of the claimant mentioned in the MLC, Ex.P/4.

7. Under these circumstances, it is held that the claimant/respondent No.1 was 50 years of age on the date of the accident. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 14 and should have applied multiplier of 13. Further excessive compensation has been awarded for future treatment and attendant charges. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for the following compensation:

8. As a consequence thereof, the compensation amount is reduced by a further sum of Rs.13,38,750/-. The other terms and conditions of the award shall remain the same.

9. At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant that the claimant has also filed M.A. No.1