SMT. SITARA BEGUM Vs. RISHI PAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises out of the award passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on 11th November 1999 for enhancement of compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 13,336/ - with an interest @ 12% PA for the injuries caused to the claimant appellant in the motor accident.

(2.) THE brief conspectus of facts is as under:

(3.) SH . J.S. Kanwar, counsel for the appellant claimant claims through this appeal that looking at the circumstances of the case the award passed by the learned Tribunal is inadequate and insufficient. He assails the said judgment of Learned Tribunal on following grounds: firstly, it was contended that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the loss of income at an amount of Only Rs. 1,336/ - and the same was paid for only one and a half months whereas the claimant appellant was unable to join her work for 2 years. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal should have awarded Rs. 1,80,000/ - on account of loss of income for 2 years. The Counsel also expresses his discontent on the amount of compensation granted towards medical expenses. He claimed an amount of Rs. 25,000 towards the medical treatment and expenses. The claimant appellant is not able to produce medical bills to claim the stated amount, but he contended that looking at the facts and circumstance of the case and the fact that the claimant received severe injuries including three fractures, the learned Tribunal should have considered awarding Rs. 25,000 specially in the time when medicines and medical treatment is becoming so expensive. Enhancement is also claimed on the ground that no amount is granted towards the special diet and conveyance charges and a meager sum of Rs. 10,000 is awarded as a cumulative sum for medical expenses and special diet. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - towards mental pain & suffering and has not passed it as a special head as per the method followed by courts. The counsel shows his discontent to that as well and argues that it should have been Rs. 1,00,000/ -. It is further contended that no award is made for the non -pecuniary damages for mental pain and suffering and loss of amenities. Further, the counsel pleaded that the tribunal erred in awarding an interest of 12% pa from 20.11.97 instead of awarding from 24.1.92 that was the date of the institution of the claim petition, thus the Tribunal erred in law by not awarding it from the date of institution of the suit.