MEHBOOBMIYA GULAMMOHMAD MALEK Vs. MOHAMMADHANIF KALUMIYA SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 8.4.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad in MACP no.1579 of 2003, the appellantoriginal claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) Following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the appeal:- That, on 15.4.2003, the appellant was travelling in a rickshaw bearing registration no. GJ-7 Z-880 which was being driven in full speed without following the traffic rules. It is the case of the appellant that when the rickshaw reached Dakor-Mahudha Road, the driver lost control of the rickshaw and the rickshaw turned turtle. Because of the said accident, the appellant received serious injuries and both the legs were fractured. An FIR came to be lodged with the jurisdictional Police Station and the claim petition was filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. It was the case of the appellant that he was working as driver with Nayadaur Transport Company and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal also considered the medical evidence on record and oral deposition of one Mohammadhanif Gulammohammad Malek at Exh.37 and Talibhussain gulammohammad Malek at Exh.38. The Tribunal, considering the fact that the appellant had to undergo extensive treatment and had to stay as an indoor patient for almost 75 days in the hospital, awarded a sum of Rs.67,000/- as medical expenses. Considering the other piece of evidence and more particularly, the injury certificates at Exhs.52 and 53, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the disability of the body as a whole is to the tune of 60%. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering, Rs.15,000/- for special diet and transportation and thus, awarded total compensation of Rs.3,52,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization and being aggrieved by the same, the appellant - original claimant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellant and Dr. Rushang Mehta, learned advocate for respondent no.3. Though served, no one appears for the other respondents.