CHANDARSINGH Vs. SANTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 1.2.2006, passed by the learned Additional Member, M.A.C.T., Kukshi, District Dhar in Claim Case No. 4 of 2006. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 63,800 with interest to the appellant by way of compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident that occurred on 2.11.2005. The appellant had preferred a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000. According to the appellant compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and deserves enhancement; however, by filing the appeal inadequacy of the compensation has been assailed.

(2.) It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable to pay the compensation, etc., because the Tribunal has already recorded the findings in favour of the appellant, none of those findings have been challenged at the instance of the respondents, i.e., owner/driver/insurance company by filing the cross-objection or cross-appeal. In that view of the matter it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on all these issues.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injuries sustained by the appellant were grievous in nature. It is also submitted that because of the injuries sustained, he has become permanently disabled. The learned counsel further drew my attention to paras 11 and 12 of the impugned award and submitted that as per medical evidence and statement of doctor, the total disablement of his right hand was 65.86 per cent. This finding has not been challenged by the insurance company by filing cross-objection or a separate appeal. He submits that prior to the date of accident, the appellant/injured was doing agriculture and running business of milk dairy and due to the injuries, he was unable to do his work and is dependent on others. He had also engaged labourers for running the business of milk dairy. The Tribunal has wrongly awarded Rs. 40,000 under the head of loss of wages due to permanent disablement.