JUDGMENT
B.M. Lal, J.
1. Claimant Shiv Prasad filed the claim petition against M.P. Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the MPSRTC) and two others claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,96,000/- for the injuries he sustained during the course of the accident.
2. In short: his case is that in MPSRTC Truck bearing registration No. CPJ 8815 he was employed as a loader. On the date of accident i.e. on 31-1-1982 at about 3 00 p.m. while returning from village Pachdhar, Tehsil and District Seoni to Khurai, the driver respondent No 2 Rishi Kumar unauthorised handed over the truck to respondent No. 3. Devendra Singh for driving from village Khwasha. It is alleged that Devendra Singh drove the vehicle at a very high speed rashly and negligently without caring for the lives of coolies aboard the truck. Finally be could not control the vehicle because of excessive speed and while passing a truck coming from opposite direction, it dashed against the culvert dug by the Public Works Department.
3. In the said accident, amongst other physical injuries, the claimant sustained lacerated wound on the right parital region across the centre structure of the skull which was stitched and dressed at Khurai Hospital.
4. In X-ray it was found that the said injury has resulted in fracture of skull and, therefore, the claimant was admitted in the Main Hospital Seoni. The claimant also got himself examined at Mayo Hospital, Nagpur and it was detected that the injury was grievous. The claimant thus had to suffer great physical pain, mental shock, agony and worry due to the aforesaid accident.
5. The claimant pleaded that he was earning Rs. 20/- per day and was also getting Rs. 2500/- per year net profit out of his agricultural fisld ad measuring three acres. He also pleaded that he had to feed five dependents i.e. ailing father aged about 60 years, three grown up children and a daughter awaiting marriage. As such he submitted that on account of the accident his agricultural income reduced to Rs. 200/- only per year, and further pleaded in his claim petition that he had to incur about Rs. 1200/-towards expenses of medical treatment. The respondents denying the entire claim resisted the same.
6. Learned Tribunal by the impugned award granted only Rs. 4,000/-to the claimant on account of shock, pain, suffering and loss of earning etc. against which this appeal is filed.
7. Learned Counsel Shri R.P. Jain appearing for the appellant contended that while granting award the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the multiplier generally used for determining a case as the instant one. The Tribunal has not assigned any reason whatsoever for arriving at the award. He further submitted that applying the principle of Workmen’s Compensation Act, the claimant is entitled to get atleast Rs. 24,000/- and, therefore, the award impugned is liable to be enhanced.
8. On the other hand, learned Counsel Shri P.R. Bhave appearing for the respondents submitted that the award is proper and no interference in it is called for.
9. The statement of PW 4 Dr. V.K. Pandey is explicit. In para 6 he states that the claimant suffered depressed fracture, may be fatal in normal course. If the victim is alive he may get complaints of giddiness, dizziness and vertigo. Further he states that, the victim may do manual work, may tolerate heavy work. Statement of PW 4 Dr. Pandey is, however, not positive that the claimant after the accident is fit for manual work or he may tolerate heavy work. But the fact remains that on account of the accident the claimant sufferred giddiness and vertigo, which is sufficient to warrant the conclusion that he is not fit for the job as on account of vertigo at any time he may fall down. Therefore, the claimant, if had not suffered permanent disability on account of the alleged accident, but definitely has suffered partial disability as per the statement of Dr. Pandey (PW-4).
10. Now the question as to the quantum of compensation still remains to be decided.
11. Applying the principle of Section 4(1)(a)(b) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, where permanent of total disablement results from the injury, the award should be an amount equal to the 50% of the monthly wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor or Rs. 24,000/ whichever is more.
12. The learned Tribunal has reached the conclusion that the claimant was earning Rs. 10/- per day and presently by running a hotel he is earning Rs. 5 per day, which comes to Rs. 150/- per month. According to the provisions of the Act the amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the claimant if multiplied by the relevant factor in accordance with Schedule IV ot Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, i.e. Rs. 197.06, as the age of the claimant was 35 years at the time of the alleged accident, it comes to:
–Rs. 197.06.x Rs. 75 (50% of Rs. 150/-
present earning)
Rs. 14799.50
13. Therefore, the Tribunal should have granted atleast Rs. 14,779.50, towards compensation. The claimant had further incurred expenses for medicine etc. to the tune of Rs. 1200/- which is also required to be added and thus a total sum of Rs. 15,979.50 ought to have been granted. Therefore, the award impugned deserves to be modified and enhanced to the above extent.
14. From the discussions aforesaid, this appeal is allowed with costs and the award impugned is modified and enhanced to Rs. 15,979/- which shall also carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Counsel’s fee Rs. 750/-, if certified.