LAXMAN TIKAMDAS SIPPY Vs. OMPRAKASH TULSIDAS WADHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By preferring this appeal the appellants have taken exception to the judgment and award dated 22.8.91, passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Pune in a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1939'). The appellants and the respondent No. 4 are the original claimants.

(2.) With a view to appreciate the submissions which are made in this appeal, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief. The appellants and the respondent No. 4 filed a claim petition on 22.11.1983 claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by their father Tikamdas Shamdas Sippy on 31.5.1983 in a motor accident. According to the case made out in the claim petition, the said Tikamdas (since deceased) was crossing the Ambedkar Road at Pune opposite the Nehru Memorial Hall along with his friend Chandmal Gangaramani. At that time a scooter bearing registration No. MZF 8412 driven by the respondent No. 1 gave a dash to the said Tikamdas. According to the case made out in the claim petition, the respondent No. 1 was driving the scooter in a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The said Tikamdas received multiple injuries as a result of the accident and his left leg and left hand were badly fractured. He became unconscious as a result of the injuries and was immediately taken to K.E.M. General Hospital. On the next day he was taken to Dudani Accident Clinic. The said Tikamdas was a retired government servant getting monthly pension of Rs. 305. It is stated that after retirement he was doing active social service and was enjoying a very good health.

(3.) It is alleged in the claim petition that even after undergoing surgery, Tikamdas was not able to move his left hand. It is alleged that in the accident Tikamdas received some brain injury as a result of which he has become mentally imbalanced and disturbed. It was stated that it became impossible for Tikamdas to walk on his own. It was stated that because of such physical and mental condition, a permanent attendant was required to be employed for him. It is stated that considering good health enjoyed by Tikamdas he would have survived for at least 20 years. It is stated that due to the accident, Tikamdas was deprived of all the happiness and satisfaction of life as he became permanently invalid and disabled. It is stated that he required presence of an attendant 24 hours. It is stated that the disablement of Tikamdas became constant source of worry and tension for the claimants as well as their family members. Originally a claim of Rs. 65,000 was made by the appellants and the respondent No. 4. It was alleged that as the said Tikamdas was not in a fit condition to sign the claim petition the same was being filed by his sons.