ABDULHAFIZ ABDULKARIM SHAIKH Vs. ADBULRASID RASUL MANSURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL claimant has approached this Court by filing this appeal to challenge the award made by the Special Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals at Godhra dated 26th March, 1993 in M.A.C. Petition No. 65 of 1985. The Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of the appellant and has awarded Rs.15,000/ - together with interest at the rate of 15% and proportionate costs. The appeal has been filed on the ground of inadequacy of the amount of compensation and to challenge the finding of the Tribunal regarding limited liability of the Insurance Company i.e., respondent no. 2.

(2.) THE appellant sustained injuries in a vehicular accident which occurred on 24th June, 1984 around 2.00 p.m. At that time he was traveling in a auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. GRQ 250 owned and driven by respondent no. 1. He was coming from Moonlight Cinema to his residence in Godhra Town. According to the appellant, the rickshaw driver i.e., respondent no. 1 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. As a result of the same, he lost control over the vehicle and it turned turtle. The appellant sustained bodily injuries. He was initially taken to the local Civil Hospital, but subsequently he was transferred to orthopedic hospital of Dr. AM Patel at Baroda. It is the say of the appellant that he had to remain in hospital for considerably long period since he had sustained compound fracture of his left femur shaft and he was also required to take follow up treatment after discharge from the hospital. It is his say that because of the injury, he had developed defect in walking and he was not able to carry on properly his work as scooter mechanic. It is his say that immediately after the accident for about 12 months he could not work and earn income. He has stated he earned Rs.600/ - p.m. On the basis of this, he preferred aforesaid petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/ - from the respondents.

(3.) I have heard Mr. JA Adeshra, learned advocate for the appellant. He has submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error in holding that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs.15,000/ - per passenger. It is his submission that under the policy, risk to the extent of Rs.50,000/ - has been covered by the Insurance Company. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has not carried out any exercise to determine the just compensation and it has proceeded on the footing that since the liability of respondent no. 2 is limited to Rs.15,000/ -, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation of Rs.15,000/ - only.