HARESHKUMAR MATHURADAS LATHIA Vs. ABDULKADAR HUSSAIN IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, for Greater Bombay dated 31-3-1986 in Application No. 834 of 1982. The appellant had filed an application for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident which had occurred on 15-12-1981 while crossing the road. The taxi bearing Registration No. M. R. K. 7134 dashed against him and he was thrown on the hedge at a distance of about 10 to 12 feet. The taxi went towards the left side about 30 to 40 metres and stopped. The appellant had sustained injuries as described in the application. An application was filed claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the ground that the appellant suffered injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the taxi driver. The application was contested only by the insurance company whereas the owner as well as the driver of the vehicle in question did not appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted some of the items as claimed by the appellant whereas discarded the claim with regard to certain items on the ground that no proof was adduced to support that position. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment eventually found that the taxi was being driven rashly and negligently which caused the accident on account of which the appellant suffered injuries. The nature of the injuries suffered was of partial disability. As a consequence of that finding and having accepted some of the items pressed into service by the appellant, the Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled for a compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,23,682. 60 along with interest at 12% p. a. from the date of application till its realisation. The Tribunal however, found that the liability of the national insurance company shall be Rs. 50,000/- with corresponding costs and interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from the date of the application till its realisation. This decision is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

(2.) ONLY two points were canvassed before this Court. The first grievance made was that the liability of the insurance company was not limited to Rs. 50,000/- as held by the Tribunal but, was co-extensive with the liability with that of the owner and driver of the vehicle. The second contention raised is that the Tribunal has committed obvious error in restricting the claim regarding the future income only up to 10 years on the premise that the appellant had suffered partial disability at around 40%. Though the respondents have been served, but none appeared.

(3.) HAVING considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and examining the record and the judgment of the Tribunal below, I find no reason to interfere with in this appeal.