SHRIKRISHNA Vs. SURENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') has been preferred by the appellant against the Judgment and award dated 30-11-2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Hardoi in M.A.C. Case No. 265 of 2009 for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) The appellant became a victim of road accident which occurred on 14-07-2009 when he was hit from behind while going on a cycle by a Pick-up bearing No. U.P.-15 X 9574 belonging to respondent no. 1. As a result of the accident, the appellant received fracture in his right leg. He was immediately taken to P.H.C. Madhoganj for treatment from where due to his condition being serious, he was referred to the District Hospital, Hardoi. However, due to non availability of the specialist doctor at the said hospital, he was then taken to Kunti Nursing Home where he was provided first aid treatment and referred to Lucknow. On 15-07-2009, he was admitted to King George Medical College Trauma Centre, Lucknow, where a surgical operation was performed on his injured leg. He remained admitted in the hospital for about one month and six days. After that also, his treatment continued at Lucknow. When no improvement took place, he was again admitted to the hospital. This time he was admitted in Vivekanand Poly Clinic at Lucknow where he underwent another surgical operation and to save his life his injured leg was amputated. According to the disability certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Hardoi, the appellant suffered 70% disability. It was stated by the appellant before the Tribunal that at the time of accident, his age was 52 years and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Pick-up. During the treatment for period of one month and six days at King George Medical College and Trauma Centre, Lucknow, nearly an amount of Rs. 1.20 lakh was spent. Further, an amount of Rs. 30,000/-was spent on his treatment in Vivekanand Poly Clinic. In all, nearly an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was spent on his treatment which is still continuing. It was also stated by the appellant that at the time of his accident, he being a farmer was doing agricultural work and also keeping buffaloes and doing the dairy business. His total earning was about Rs. 4,000/- per month. As a result of the amputation of his right leg, he was no longer in a position to walk without support and had been rendered incapable to pursue his agricultural & dairy work personally and to earn his livelihood. The claim petition was filed by the appellant under section 166/168 of the of the Act.

(3.) After considering the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Pick-up. The disability received by the appellant on the basis of disability certificate of Chief Medical Officer,Hardoi was held to be 70%. It was further held that at the time of the accident, age of the appellant was 52 years, but, as regards the income of the appellant, the Tribunal declined to accept the same as Rs. 4,000/- per month. It observed that except for his own statement, no other reliable evidence had been produced by the appellant either to prove that he was keeping buffaloes or doing any dairy business and having an earning of Rs. 4,000/- per month. It held his notional income to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum.