HARESHWAR HARISCHANDRA MISTRY Vs. PRAVIN B. NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-original claimant assails the Judgment and Award in MACP No.972 of 2001, dtd. 25/10/2010 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palghar (Tribunal), on the ground of inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

(2.) The appeal arises in the backdrop of the following facts: a) In the year 1996, the applicant claimed that, he was 39 years of age and dealing in the business of fabrication and civil contractor. He used to earn Rs.10,000.00 per month. On 17/12/1996, he was riding a motor cycle bearing No. MH04/ W2278 in a moderate speed and on the correct side of road, on his way to Mumbai. When he reached near Thermal Power Station, Dahanu road, opposite new guest house, a Tata Sumo bearing No. MH04 - Q - 5328 owned by the opponent No.1 and insured with opponent No.2 came from the opposite direction in a high speed. The driver of the said jeep drove it in an extremely negligent manner and gave a violent dash to the applicant's motor cycle. Due to the impact, the applicant and Mr. Dilip Amin, the pillion rider, were thrown off the motor cycle. The applicant suffered a compound fracture Tibia (right). It resulted in a permanent partial disability, assessed it 20%. On account of the said disability, the applicant is unable to squat, run, sit cross legged etc. The applicant was made to incur expenses to the tune of Rs.25,000.00 towards medical treatment. Hence, the applicant instituted an application for compensation under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("MV Act,1988").

(3.) I have heard Mr. Gangal, the learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Chavan the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 insurer. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, I have perused the material on record including the impugned judgment, deposition of the witness and documents.