NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SALIL PRAKASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First two appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company (under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) against the different judgments and orders dated 26th September, 1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition Nos. 161 and 160 of 1994; and third cross-appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation. The brief facts of the cases are that on 15th January, 1994, at about 10.45 a.m., both the claimants-respondents, who are brother-in-law to each other were travelling in a Maruti Car No. UGO 2454 from Kanpur to Lucknow. When they reached near police station Banthara (Lucknow), a Ambassador Car No. UHZ 8447 was coming, from the opposite direction, whose driver was driving it rashly and negligently collided with the Maruti Car causing severe injuries to both the claimants.

(2.) The first claimant Sri Salil Prakash Gupta became partly disabled. After examining the entire evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,65,722/- to him. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 81,200/- to the second claimant Sri Rakesh Sharma against the Insurance Company. Being aggrieved, appellant-Insurance Company has filed both the appeals before this Court and at the same time Salil Prakash Gupta has filed a cross-appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

(3.) With this backdrop, Sri R.C. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the compensation in both the cases are on higher side, where the interest @ 12% was also allowed and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that after accident, the claimants were admitted in a nursing home and not in a Government hospital at Kanpur. For the injuries, very heavy compensation was awarded by the Tribunal. He also submits that the vouchers submitted by the claimants with regard to the treatment were not properly examined by the Tribunal and no report of any Government hospital regarding the serious injuries or X-ray of alleged fracture was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal wrongly allowed the compensation for loss of future income, whereas the claimants did not furnish any evidence suggesting any loss of income. After the alleged accident, the claimants did not prove any documents filed in support of their allegation. So, the learned Tribunal erred in placing reliance of its documents and there was not a single prescription of any Government hospital and the claimants manipulated receipts of the private nursing home, which were not proved. Lastly, he made a request that both the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal may kindly be set aside.