DINESH B LIMBOCHA Vs. RAMESH TULSIRAM MARATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original claimant has approached this Court to seek enhancement of the compensation awarded to him by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Kheda at Nadiad in MACP No. 549 of 1985. The judgment and award are dated 18th October, 1988. The Claims Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.31,280=00 together with running interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the application till realization and also the proportionate costs thereon. The present appeal is filed on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate and it is required to be enhanced.

(2.) The accident in question giving rise to the present proceedings took place on 8th September, 1984 at about 8:45 p.m. The appellant was travelling by bus owned by respondent no. 2 and driven by respondent no. 1. He was proceeding to Dahod. The bus was plying between Ahmedabad and Bhopal. When the bus reached near Bhavans College on Umreth -Dakor Road, a truck came from the opposite direction. It is case of the appellant that respondent no. 1 did not slow down the bus and it dashed against the truck. As a result of the collision, the appellant received injuries on the right hand. He was immediately removed to Cottage Hospital at Dakor and subsequently he was transferred to SSG Hospital at Vadodara. During treatment, it was found that serious injuries were caused to the fingers of his right hand and his little finger was required to be amputated. He remained in the SSG Hospital from 9th September, 1984 to 20th October, 1984 as indoor patient. He, therefore, filed petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"] for claiming compensation of Rs.75,000=00.

(3.) Respondent no. 2 resisted the petition by filing written statement at Exh, 12, wherein the averments made in the petition were denied. It was also averred that the petition was bad for non -joinder of the parties since the driver, owner and the insurance company of the truck were not joined as party to the proceedings. It was also denied that respondent no. 1 namely the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident. The respondents tried to throw the blame on the truck driver. Respondent no. 1 adopted the written statement of respondent no. 2 by filing purshis at Exh. 11.