SANJAY MAHADEVAPPA JAWADEKAR Vs. RAJKUMAR RIKRAM CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act [for short, 'said Act'] on account of the disability sustained by him in an accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad [for short, 'Tribunal'] partly allowed the same. The present Appeal is filed for. enhancement of the amount. Mr. Khedkar, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has proved that he was earning Rs. 4,000 [Rupees four thousand only] per month by working as a salesman in an optical shop. He was also earning Rs. 3,000 [Rupees three thousand only] per month by selling milk. Both the employers are examined. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. The learned Counsel further submits that an amount of Rs. 20,000 [Rupees twenty thousand only] was paid to the Doctor, but it was not considered at all only on the ground that it is not issued on receipt book or bill book, but the same is on letter head. According to the learned Counsel, the Doctor has deposed before the Tribunal and proved the said bill. According to the learned Counsel, very meagre amount is awarded towards pains and sufferings.

(2.) Mr. Upadhye, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the evidence of employer. According to the learned Counsel, there is no proof of income nor it is the case of permanent disability. The Doctor has very clearly said that the injuries were common injuries and with the passage of time, the patient would improve and there would not be any permanent disability. There is no loss of income as there is no permanent disability. The disability certificate does not inspire confidence. In the injury certificate, only two (2) fractures are stated. Even the Doctor's statement is suspicious. According to the learned Counsel, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation. The learned Counsel further submits that as it is not a case of permanent disability, multiplier system has rightly not been applied.

(3.) I have gone through the impugned judgment and award and the record and proceedings.