BHAGWAT PARSHAD KESRI Vs. NAFE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the judgment/award dated 25.10.1983 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The appellant is the claimant before the Tribunal. By the impugned judgment/award a sum of Rs. 19,000/- has been awarded to him with direction that if the awarded amount is not paid within 3 months of the making of the award the Insurance Company shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of award till realisation.

(2.) THE appellant had made a claim of Rs. 80,000/- for personal injuries. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 are the owner, Insurance Company and driver, respectively of Bus No. DEP-2414 whereas respondents No. 4 & 6 are the owner and Insurance Company in respect of another Bus No. DLP 6889 involved in the accident and respondent No. 5 is the Delhi Transport Corporation. Both the buses involved in the accident were under Delhi Transport Corporation operation represented by respondent No. 5. The appellant was travelling in Bus No. DLP-6889 when at about 7.30 p.m. on 5th May, 1980 his bus reached C-Hexagon Road, Bus No. DEP-2414 coming from opposite direction driven by respondent No. 3 Hari Ram driver struck against Bus No. DLP-6889 as a result of which the appellant was injured causing fracture on his right arm. He was removed to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi where he remained admitted till 8.5.1980. His arm also remained under plaster for sometime and in due course he filed petition under Section 110-A of the Act claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 80,000/- alleging that the accident was caused due to rash and reckless driving on the part of respondent No. 3-driver of Bus No. DEP-2414. He claimed this compensation alleging that he was aged about 22 years, had suffered permanent disability affecting his working capacity and future career and he had also suffered mental shock, agony and pain. He has also alleged that he was graduate and was a student of L.L.B. and he could not take examination in Railway Service Commission for which he had got a call letter.

(3.) IN the petition, the petitioner/appellant had not given the details of the amount claimed. However, in replication he specified the claimed amount as under: