SHAHJAD ALI Vs. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant for the enhancement of the compensation, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and order dated 31.5.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh in Claim Petition No. 70 of 2008. Shahjad Ali v. Pawan Kumar Singh and another, where a compensation of Rs. 1,05,308 was awarded against the opposite party No. 2. i.e., New India Assurance Company Ltd. The brief facts of the case are that on 6.7.2007, at about 5.30 p.m., the appellant-claimant was going with two daughters on his motor-cycle. When he reached near Babhanmai bridge, Raniganj, a jeep bearing number U.P. 33 B/5051 was coming from the opposite direction, whose driver was driving it carelessly, rashly and negligently and dashed the motorcycle which resulted serious injuries to all the three persons and later the claimant-appellant became disabled. The driver of the jeep ran away with the jeep towards Raniganj. Immediately, an F.I.R. was lodged. The claimant-appellant has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, who after examining the entire evidence has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,05,308. The Tribunal observed that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of the motorcycle driver and jeep driver. So, the liability was fixed in the ratio of 25% and 75%. Being aggrieved, the appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal.

(2.) With this background, Sri J.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation is meagre one. He also submits that the disability was 50% but notional income was taken @ 15,000 per year. So, he made a request that the compensation may kindly be enhanced.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri Ved Prakash, learned counsel for the New India Assurance Company Ltd. has justified the impugned award. He submits that on the motor-cycle, there were three passengers. So, it is the sole negligence on the part of the claimant and insurance company is not entitled to pay any compensation. On the specific query from the Bench, he submits that the Commander Jeep in question was insured with the opposite party No. 2.