MALTIBEN CHANDRAKANT MEHTA Vs. MAHESH BABULAL TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of a claimant in a proceeding under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 5th February 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad in MAC Petition No.1224 of 2003 thereby partly allowing an application for compensation by awarding a sum of Rs.1,14,400/ - with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim -application till realisation for the injury suffered by the claimant. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has come up with the present appeal.

(2.) IT appears from the record that on 26th July 2003 at about 8.15 hours in the night, the claimant was returning from her beauty parlour by her own scooty bearing No.GJ -1 -BQ -414 when one Maruti Wagon -R bearing No.GJ -2K -7433 came with full speed in a rash and negligent manner and violating traffic rules, dashed the right side front portion of the car with the said scooty at the right side, as a result, the claimant had fallen down on the road and sustained fracture on her right leg and other bodily injuries, including fractures. The claimant was immediately shifted to Samved Hospital and was admitted as an indoor patient from 26th July 2003 to 19th August 2003. An FIR was lodged by the claimant before Navrangpura Police Station charging opponent No.1, the owner and driver of the vehicle for rash and negligent driving. Due to such accident, there were operations on her right leg twice and consequently, her right leg became shorter by one inch. The claimant lodged compensation of Rs.5 lakh for the injury suffered including financial loss suffered by her for one year. The claim -application was contested by the insurer of the Maruti vehicle but no evidence was adduced opposing the application, whereas the claimant herself gave evidence in detail regarding her income and expenditure for the treatment of the injury.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge accepted the case of the claimant that the owner of the Maruti vehicle was solely responsible and that she suffered 20% disability of the body and 40% of the disability of the leg in question. However, while assessing compensation in a cryptic manner, the Tribunal came to the following conclusion : -