DASRATH Vs. ALOK KUMAR DUBEY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the appellant claimant being aggrieved against the impugned judgment and award dated 4.5.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kaushambi in M.A.C.P. No. 109 of 2003 (Dasrath v. Alok Kumar Dubey and Others) awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/-/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the appellant claimant inter alia on the ground that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and also that the Tribunal has not calculated the compensation as contemplated in law.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 23.2.2003 while appellant claimant was going to the hospital met with an accident at about 11.30 AM near Primary Health Centre, Manjhanpur by a motor vehicle Vikram bearing registration no. U.P. 73 Q-0157. The said accident had occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the said vehicle. Respondent no. 1 is the registered owner of the said vehicle. At the time of accident his vehicle was insured with respondent no. 2. In the said accident appellant claimant has sustained grievous injuries (compound fracture in left leg below knee joint) causing permanent disability. At the time of accident appellant claimant was doing the work of mason and earned Rs. 3000/- per month. Due to injuries sustained in the said accident he has become permanently handicapped and his occupation also become affected. While awarding the compensation the Tribunal has not considered properly the loss of earnings and needs of future of the appellant claimant. FIR of the said accident was lodged at police station Manjhanpur against the driver of the said offending vehicle. After investigation in the case police has submitted the charge-sheet no. 32 of 2003 under Sections 279/338/427 IPC against the driver of the said offending vehicle. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, therefore, same is liable to be enhanced.

(3.) The proceedings were contested by the owner of the offending vehicle as well as the insurance company denying the allegations by filing written statement. It was also pleaded by the owner of the said vehicle that in any view of the matter since at the time of accident the said vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 2 and the driver was having a valid driving license, the liability, if any, was on the insurance company.