Skip to content


Bhuri Bai Vs. Rehman and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2(1986)ACC425
AppellantBhuri Bai
RespondentRehman and ors.
Excerpt:
- - he has stated that bhuribai was working on his fields as well. 4. the learned presiding judge of the motor accident claims tribunal has held that the appellant failed to establish partial disability......hospital, khandwa on 11-4-82 and was discharged on 14-4-82 (ex. p-4). the humerus bone of her left hand was fractured in the said accident. left hand of the applicant was plastered for 6 weeks. x-ray was again taken on 30-4-82 vide ex. p.5. her hand was again x-rayed on 2-9-82. it was detected that the fracture was nor mended till then. the doctor has opined that the movement of the shoulder was restricted. it takes sufficient long time to mend such a fracture. he has also opined that the patient could not use the said arm due to the said fracture for sufficient long time. his opinion was that if proper exercise is given to the patient, she may use her left hand within a period of 1-1/2 years to 2 years. he could not advice the patient regarding exercise which she was required to do for.....
Judgment:

S. Awasthy, J.

1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of award of Rs. 5800/- passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khandwa, in Claim Case No. 26/82.

2. There is no dispute before me that on 11-4-82 bus No. C.P.O. 9122 met with an accident causing injuries to the claimant Smt. Bhuribai who was a passenger in the said bus. Respondent No. 1 was the driver of the said bus which he owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No. 3. The injuries which were sustained by the Claimant have been proved by Dr. Vijai Singh (A.W.I). Dr. J.P.N. Dubey (A.W.2) proved the X-ray report Ex. P-3. According to him Smt. Bhuribai was admitted in the main hospital, Khandwa on 11-4-82 and was discharged on 14-4-82 (Ex. P-4). The humerus bone of her left hand was fractured in the said accident. Left hand of the applicant was plastered for 6 weeks. X-ray was again taken on 30-4-82 vide Ex. P.5. Her hand was again X-rayed on 2-9-82. It was detected that the fracture was nor mended till then. The doctor has opined that the movement of the shoulder was restricted. It takes sufficient long time to mend such a fracture. He has also opined that the patient could not use the said arm due to the said fracture for sufficient long time. His opinion was that if proper exercise is given to the patient, she may use her left hand within a period of 1-1/2 years to 2 years. He could not advice the patient regarding exercise which she was required to do for mending that arm. According to him if there is no proper movement of the shoulder, the patient could not pull the water or wash the utensils, which required proper movement of the shoulder joint. This doctor was unable to give percentage of the incapacity rendered to the shoulder joint. The restriction in the shoulder movement was because of the delay in mending the fracture.

3. The Claimant has examined herself as A.W.4. According to her she still feels pain in her left hand. She was unable to work with that hand. She used to pull water and wash the utensils prior to the accident which she was unable to do after the said accident. She was employed by Pritamdas and Balbir for doing the house-hold jobs. They were paying Rs. 50/- each P.M. to her. She was also working as a labourer in the fields and was earning Rs. 5/- per day. Pritam Das has been examined as A.W.5. He has admitted that prior to the accident he was paying Rs. 50/- to her for doing his house-hold work but she was unable to do the same after the accident. Her employment has been terminated by him. He has stated that Bhuribai was working on his fields as well. He was paying her Rs. 3-1/2 per day for the said job. He has also stated that Bhuribai was washing the utensils of Kartar Singh, also.

4. The learned Presiding Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has held that the appellant failed to establish partial disability. He, therefore, did not grant any amount of compensation on that count. It is true that the partial disability as alleged by the appellant/claimant is only temporary. But it is not sure as to how much period of it would take to enable her to do all the work which she was doing prior to the accident. Had some exercises been prescribed to her, she would have practised those exercises and the shoulder might have mended within the period of 2 years. But those exercises were not prescribed to her with the result that the partial disability would continue for a long period. Adequate compensation on this count should have been granted to her. In my view an amount of Rs. 5000/- would be sufficient on this count.

5. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The award of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khandwa, is modified and enhanced to Rs. 10,800/-. It is directed that the additional amount of Rs. 5000/- shall be paid to her with interest from the date of Award till the date of payment of the amount to her. The remaining amount shall remain in fixed deposit as directed in the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The parties are directed to bear their costs of this appeal as incurred by them.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //