RUPESH RASHMIKANT SHAH Vs. ELEGANT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Anita A. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no.2 at length. None appears for respondent No.1, though duly served.

(2.) By this Appeal, the original claimant has challenged the Judgment and Award dated 30.3.1990 passed by the learned Member, IIIrd Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Gr. Bombay, (for short, 'Tribunal') in Application No. 565 of 1979 filed Tapadia RR under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act'). By that order, the Tribunal partly allowed the petition instituted by the appellant, hereinafter referred to as 'claimant', and held that he is entitled to recover from respondent no.1, (hereinafter referred to as opposite party), and respondent no.2, ( hereinafter referred to as 'Insurer'), compensation of Rs.4,12,000/- together with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition until realization, among other directions.

(3.) The Petition was instituted by the claimant on 16.4.1979 through his father, the next friend, as at the time of accident the claimant was aged about 8 years. The Petition was instituted claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 16.10.1978 at about 4.15 pm near Kashinath House, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai. Initially, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- was claimed. By filing application on 26.11.1981 at Exhibit 7, the claim was raised to Rs.15,00,000/-. During the pendency of the Petition, application dated 8.12.1987 at Exhibit 28 was filed raising compensation from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs. 50,00,000/-. The application at Exhibit-7 was granted. The application at Exhibit- 28 was not decided as on behalf of the claimant it was urged before the Tribunal that it can fix the amount of compensation in excess if so desired and the claimant is prepared to pay such deficit court fees on the enhanced claim of compensation. The relevant and material facts giving rise for filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under, -