SANAT KUMAR SAHU Vs. VINOD KUMAR AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals filed by the claimants as well as by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 07.01.2010 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 149/2009. Vide the impugned award, The Tribunal in an injury case under Section 163A of MV Act has awarded compensation of Rs.40,513 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application.

(2.) Counsel for the claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is unreasonably low and the same deserves suitable enhancement. According to the counsel for the claimant, it is a case where the claimant as a result of the accident that took place on 26.08.2006 sustained injuries on various parts of his body but the major injury was caused to the right eye which resulted in total loss of vision. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered this aspect while quantifying the compensation and prayed for suitable enhancement of the compensation awarded.

(3.) Counsel for the Insurance Company assailing the impugned award questions the finding of the Tribunal in as much as not appreciating the element of contributory negligence in the accident that occurred. He further questions the compensation awarded on the ground of injury not having been established and proved by a competent doctor. According to the counsel for the Insurance Company, the doctor who has been examined is a treating doctor and not an eye specialist to give the opinion regarding the disability caused to the eye. The disability certificate produced by the claimant also is not from a competent Board authorized to grant disability certificate. Therefore the impugned award deserves to be set aside. The Insurance Company has thus preferred the appeal challenging the said finding.