LAWS(BOM)-1993-9-102

SHEKHAR SHANTARAM DIGHE Vs. ROSHAN LAL UDAY BHAN

Decided On September 27, 1993
Shekhar Shantaram Dighe Appellant
V/S
Roshan Lal Uday Bhan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR personal injuries sustained in an accident, while travelling in a luxury bus, on July 3, 1981, whereby he lost his left arm, the appellant filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhule, claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-from the owners and insurers of the bus, who are the respondents herein. The learned Tribunal disposed of the application by directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 69,140/-, with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum and proportionate costs to the appellant as compensation. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

(2.) THOUGH before the Tribunal various defences were raised on behalf of the respondents to resist the claim which, needless to say, were negatived, the respondents have not filed any cross-objections or cross-appeal. Consequently, the only question that falls for our determination is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant is just and fair.

(3.) IN quantifying his claim for compensation at Rs. 5,00,000/- the appellant averred that he was expected to go to Middle East in connection with the construction job his employer was entrusted with and to get a salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month but owing to the accident, his expectations were belied and dreams shattered. In support of his contention he examined some of his colleagues as witnesses on his behalf. Having gone through their evidence, we are unable to hold that the appellant was assured of a foreign job and for that matter an expected income of Rs. 15,000/- per month. They were not competent to speak about such assurance and one of them (AW 2) admitted that no agreement had been executed between the appellant and the company about such job. Neither the appellant's employer nor anybody on his behalf, who could have only offered such job or given assurance, came to support the appellant's claim.