ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA Vs. ROSHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 1.2.1994 of the Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 52 of 1990.

(2.) The facts briefly stated are that the appellant was working as Assistant Engineer in Irrigation Department in the State of Chhattisgarh. In the year 1990 he was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer of Bango Division of the Irrigation Department. On 7.6.1990 while he was going to Bilaspur by his official jeep having registration No. MPZ 7699 in connection with some official work, he met with an accident with bus having registration No. MP 26-0301 which was coming from the opposite direction. The said bus was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3. In the accident the left eye of appellant was completely damaged and appellant claimed a total compensation of Rs. 7,80,000. The claim was contested by insurance company, respondent No. 3 and Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 52,500.

(3.) Mr. Vimlesh Bajpayee, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is not in dispute that the appellant has completely lost his left eye and has suffered a permanent disability of 40 per cent as certified by the doctor. He further submitted that the appellant was only 30 years of age at the time of the accident and thus the appellant was entitled to not only pecuniary damages but also non-pecuniary damages on account of pain and suffering and on account of loss of amenity of the vision of the left eye. He cited the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), in which Apex Court allowed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 towards claim for pain and suffering and Rs. 1,50,000 for loss of amenity. He submitted that in the present case the Tribunal has allowed only Rs. 25,000 towards loss of confidence and mental tension and only Rs. 25,000 for loss of one eye, besides a sum of Rs. 2,500 towards loss of salary for the period during which the appellant took leave on account of injury. Mr. B.D. Guru, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, on the other hand, submitted that appellant continued to work in the government department and has also got his due promotions in service and, therefore, was not entitled to any amount more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal.