MUKESH KAPOOR Vs. SHRI MUNNA LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the injured who was awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/ - by learned MAC Tribunal vide its order dated 22nd March, 1996. The appellant has assailed the order on two counts; one that the compensation awarded to him was on lower side and second that the Tribunal wrongly held that the liability of the insurance company/respondent No. 3 was limited to Rs. 50,000/ -.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that the appellant received injuries on 8th April, 1982 in an accident caused due to rash and negligent act of driving of vehicle No. DLG -9261 by its driver, that is, respondent No. 1. In the accident, the appellant received following injuries:

(3.) THE learned Tribunal observed that though the witness has stated that he took treatment from different doctors but no record of medical treatment was produced on the case file. The doctors who first treated him, i.e., when he was confined to bed had not been examined. The accident had taken place in the year 1982. The appellant examined doctor who treated him from the year 1985 onwards. No medical record of Tirath Ram Shah Hospital or RML Hospital or X -ray reports etc., were proved or produced by the appellant. The appellant only produced some bills of the medicines purchased by him and some certificates of private nursing homes (which were not proved). The appellant produced bills only to the tune of Rs. 1,900/ - to Rs. 2,000/ -. The appellant also failed to prove his income as alleged by him. The bank manager was examined as prosecution witness who deposed that loan was raised by the appellant in the year 1980. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence, observed that though there was some disability suffered by the claimant due to accident, but the claimant had not disclosed the exact loss caused to him due to injuries suffered by him. He claimed to have spent Rs. 40,000/ - on treatment but without any bills. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - to the claimant towards expenses on medicines although bills of only Rs. 2,000/ - were produced. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 60,000/ - to the claimant/appellant towards pains, sufferings and disability, Rs. 5,000/ - towards diet and conveyance, Rs. 15,000/ - towards loss of enjoyment of life, Rs. 15,000/ - for future prospects and another sum of Rs. 15,000/ - towards miscellaneous expenses. The appellant had also claimed from the Tribunal a sum of Rs. 3,411.46 for damages to the scooter but the testimony of the appellant showed that he had received insurance claim in respect of scooter from the insurance company with whom the scooter was insured by him. So, this claim was denied.