IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI

th

ON THE 5 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 3767 of 2023 AMJAD Versus SUNIL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rahul Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Preeti Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent [R-2].

ORDER Heard on I.A. No.4718/2023, which is an application for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 103 days in fling the present appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No.4718/2023 is allowed and disposed of. The delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.

2. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act being aggrieved by the award dated 07.12.2022 passed in claim case No.152/2019 challenging quantum of compensation.

3. The liability of insurance company is not under dispute.

4. The short facts of case are that on 11.08.2019, the appellant was going on motorcycle along with his wife from Khalghaat to Saalaa Punarwaas. At around 02.30 in the afternoon when they reached near Shaalaa Panchaayat, a motorcycle bearing registration number MP09-VS-4739 came from behind which was being ridden in a rash and negligent manner and dashed into the motorcycle of the appellant because of which the appellant and his wife fell from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries. They were rushed to Government Hospital, Dhaamnod, from where after primary treatment they were referred to Vyanktesh Hospital Dhaamnod where they were treated.

5. The appellant/claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The claims tribunal after recording evidence found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle and awarded 4,83,425/- to the appellant. While quantifying compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant, the claims tribunal considered that the appellant has suffered 5% permanent disability. However, claim of the appellant was that he suffered 43% permanent disability for which permanent disability certificate Ex.P-25 was placed on record. In support of this certificate, evidence of AW-3 Dinesh Thakur was also recorded before the tribunal. However, the claims tribunal while considering the impact on the loss of earning capacity has taken the same only at 5%.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this conclusion of the claims tribunal is not correct as the treating doctor has clearly opined that the appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 43%. He suffered fracture in tibia fibula bone in which an implant of rod and screw have been inserted because of which the weight bearing capacity of the appellant has reduced drastically. His muscles have gotten weak because of which he is not able to bear weight on his injured leg. Learned counsel further submits that for special diet, attendant and transportation only Rs.5000/- each has been awarded but nothing has been awarded for pain and suffering. He thus prays for enhancement of compensation.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company supports the findings of the award and submits that looking to the nature of work of the appellant inasmuch as he was doing business of transportation, the permanent disability suffered by him has not resulted into any kind of loss of earning capacity, thus, the claims tribunal in fact has generously taken his permanent disability at 5% in which no interference is warranted.

He thus prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. From perusal of permanent disability certificate Ex.P-25, it is clear that the appellant has suffered grievous fracture in the right lower limb and implant has been inserted for the same. The doctor has clearly opined that his right lower limb has gotten weak because of which he is not able to perform his duty as earlier. The nature of wo