STATE OF M.P. Vs. SEEPAT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 1.1.2000 passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Jagdalpur, in Claim Case No. 57/99. The Claimant Seepat Sharma (40) sustained 15% disability in the accident. That took place on 21.3.1997 at 6p.m., when, in front of Excise Office, Collectorate Road, Jagdalpur, the vehicle M.R.B. 218 being driven rashly and negligently, cause grievous injuries to him resulting in fracture. He was subjected to medical operation 2 -3 times and was confined to home for about 2 year. As a result of this, he states that he cannot bent his knee and he walks limpingly. That apart, he cannot sit nor he can drive the vehicle. His income was Rs. 6,000/ - per month being a furniture manufacturer. Compensation o' Rs. 12,89,000/ - has been claimed under different heads. The Appellants/non -claimants filed written statement denying all the claims. The accident has been denied, though it is admitted that the claimant had visited Jagdalpur on the date of accident, but had returned at 2 p.m. The involvement of the vehicle has also been denied and it is stated that he has been involved on the basis of doubt. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of evidence before it, reached to the conclusion that the claimant sustained injury due to the said accident. Consequently, the compensation of Rs. 1,01,400/ - has been assessed, payable with interest at the rate of 12 percent, if paid within two month, otherwise 18%. This award has been assailed through this appeal.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and perused the record, particularly, the conclusions of the Claims Tribunal are with respect to income of the claimant and the mode of determination of compensation. We find that the claimant received severe injuries in the accident. There is no reason why his statement is disbelieved that he was subjected to operation 2 -3 times. He could not work for number of years and due to injury, he walks limpingly and his knee cannot bend nor can drive the vehicle. He is manufacturing furnitures, therefore, he was earning Rs. 4000/ - per month. However, the Tribunal has fixed the same at Rs. 4,000/ - per month, which is quite reasonable. Consequently, looking to his age, suffering of severe injury, the treatment received and the life he could not spend properly, the determination of compensation is quite just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, so is the interest payable initially and after default. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Two month time is granted for payment of compensation amount.