H L SHARMA Vs. ASHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the award of compensation passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on 13th June for enhancement of compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 35,000/- with an interest @ 6% PA for the injuries caused to the claimant appellant in the motor accident.

(2.) Sh. Y.R. Sharma, counsel for the appellant claimant urged that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is inadequate and insufficient looking to the circumstances of the case. He assailed the said judgment of Learned Tribunal firstly, on the ground that the tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 15,000/- only for the loss of income due to this accident. He urged that the appellant could not attend his business for two years due to injuries and further, share of the appellant in the business has also been reduced from 75% to 50%. Keeping in view the facts of the case, it is argued that the tribunal should have awarded an amount of Rs 1,00,000/- for the loss of income. The Counsel also expressed his discontentment on the amount of compensation of Rs 10,000/- granted towards medical expenses. Enhancement is also claimed on the ground that a sum of just Rs. 2,500/- is awarded towards conveyance instead of the claim of Rs. 3,200/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental pain and suffering but the counsel shows his discontent to that as well and averred that it should have been Rs. 50,000/-. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the Tribunal erred in not awarding any award towards the permanent injury caused to the appellant as his left foot is reduced to 3/4th of its length. Thus, for permanent disablement also he sought compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Amount towards expenses incurred in repairing the damage to the two wheeler scooter is also pleaded through this appeal. Further the counsel pleaded that the counsel erred in awarding an interest of 6% pa instead of 12% pa.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent insurance company Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa has appeared and has submitted her arguments against the enhancement of the award passed by the Learned Tribunal. Her line of arguments against the present appeal was that the liability of the insurance company is limited to a maximum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as per the deposition of Asstt. Division Manager and thus the liability of insurance company to pay can, under no circumstances in present case be pushed beyond the limit of 1,50,000/-. Further, on merits of the case, it is argued that the appellant failed to produce disability certificate on the record to prove the extent of the disability. Moreover, the doctor who deposed on behalf of the appellant claimant also stated that he never examined the appellant and he could make out the shortening of the leg only from physical appearance. Thus it is said that the tribunal was correct in not believing the testimony of the doctor as he never examined the appellant himself. The counsel for the insurance company further contended that the Tribunal rightly rejected the prayer of claimant appellant for compensation for the permanent disability as he could easily walk and run despite shortening of the leg. The counsel further stated that the Tribunal was right in awarding compensation for a period of 8 months and awarding an interest of 6% as the petitioner himself caused delay of the trial since the issues were framed in the year 1987, thus the grant of interest @ 6% should be held justified.