Saurabh Vs. Dhanna Ram and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- madhya pradesh municipal corporation act (23 of 1956)section 91 & m.p. municipal corporation act (1956), section 307(5): [a.k. patnaik, c.j., a.m. sapre & s.k.seth, jj] public nuisance - suit for injunction - held, section 91(i) of the c.p.c. is not exhaustive of the remedies that are available to a party even in case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting or likely to affect the public. the remedy of the corporation and any other person under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the act of 1956 is independent of the provisions of section 91 of the c.p.c. and not only the corporation but any other person can apply to the district court for injunction or removal or alteration of a building on the ground that the provisions of the act of 1956 or the bye-laws made..........in question, he suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 5% in his vertebral column. the tribunal awarded rs. 25,000 as compensation for the injury and further awarded rs. 15,000 for pain and suffering, loss of wages, medical reimbursement and special diet. it appears that it is a case in which the learned tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that permanent disablement under reference at the age of 23 years is a serious matter because for a very long remaining period of his life the claimant/appellant will have to bear the trauma flowing from the permanent disablement. he was only 23 years when the accident occurred, therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and especially keeping in view the future trauma of the appellant, the total.....

Judgment:
ORDER

W.A. Shah, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ('Act' hereafter) has been directed against the award dated 23.7.2005 passed by learned III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Camp-Jaora (Ratlam) in Claim Case No. 17/2004. By the Award impugned the claimant/appellant has been awarded Rs. 40,000 along with usual interest and costs. According to the appellant, the amount so awarded is on a lower side, hence this appeal for enhancement of the above amount.

2. The claimant/appellant aged about 23 years at the relevant time was moving in a bus which was hit by offendig Truck driven rashly by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No. 3. In the accident, occurred on public way the claimant/appellant sustained injuries and among others sustained injury in vertebral column to the extent of 5% permanent disablement. He applied under Section 166 of the Act before the learned Tribunal below. The Tribunal held that in the accident in question, he suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 5% in his vertebral column. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000 as compensation for the injury and further awarded Rs. 15,000 for pain and suffering, loss of wages, medical reimbursement and special diet. It appears that it is a case in which the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that permanent disablement under reference at the age of 23 years is a serious matter because for a very long remaining period of his life the claimant/appellant will have to bear the trauma flowing from the permanent disablement. He was only 23 years when the accident occurred, therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and especially keeping in view the future trauma of the appellant, the total amount of Award of Rs. 40,000.00 deserves to be increased to Rs. 1,00,000.

3. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed. It is directed that the Award under attack stands accordingly modified and the respondents are directed to pay jointly and severally within one month Rs. 1,00,000 to the appellant along with 6% yearly interest from the date of the application. This appeal stands finally disposed of, however, with no order as to costs.