HUSSAIN ABDUL REHMAN Vs. AHMEDA YUSUFBHAI KALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged in this appeal the compensation awarded by MACT [Special] Ahmedabad (Rural) at Ahmedabad on the ground that it is inadequate. The appellant had preferred MACP No. 214 of 1986 to obtain compensation for the injuries received by him and also the resultant effect on his earning capacity in an accident which occurred on 10th July, 1984. It was his say that on that day he was travelling in a truck bearing registration no. GRN 3238 since he was working as a cleaner on that truck. It was driven by respondent no. 1. The truck was owned by respondent no. 2 and it was insured with respondent no. 3. It was the say of the appellant that the ruck was going from Godhra to Ahmedabad for unloading the goods in New Laxmi Saw Mills in Odhav area. He had further averred that the truck was driven at excessive speed and in negligent manner. Even when they reached the place, when respondent no. 1 was required to take the vehicle in reverse, he did so in such a speed and in that manner he even did not allow the appellant to get down from the truck and to give signal in reversing the vehicle. The appellant was in the process of getting down, when respondent no. 1 all of a sudden took the vehicle in reverse. As a result of which the appellant fell down and received injuries. He received serious injuries on body including fracture on right leg below knee joint. He was admitted in the Government hospital at Ahmedabad on the same day as indoor patient. According to the appellant he remained as indoor patient for sufficiently long period. Even after his discharge from the hospital for follow up treatment he was treated as outdoor patient. He, therefore, ultimately preferred the aforesaid petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for claiming the compensation of Rs.25,000=00.

(2.) The claim was resisted by the respondents. Respondents no. 1 and 2 filed written statement at Exh. 10. It was contended that the monthly income of the appellant was Rs.350=00 and he sustained injuries because of his own negligence. So far as respondent no. 3 insurance company was concerned, it filed written statement at Exh. 20. It contended inter alia that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the petition.

(3.) On the basis of the material produced before it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the injures were suffered by the appellant due to negligent driving of respondent no. 1. The Tribunal also assessed the compensation at Rs.16,140=00. The Tribunal delivered the judgment and award on 18th January, 1993. The appellant has now sought enhancement in the compensation.