SUDHA Vs. PATEL TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the award dated 5.7.2005 passed by 15th MACT, Indore in Claim Case No. 42/2005, whereby claim petition filed by the appellant for compensation on account of injuries sustained by appellant in a motor accident, which took place on 25.8.2000 was dismissed, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim petition alleging that appellant was going with her daughter. It was alleged both of them reached to ICICI Bank, MG Road at that time respondent No. 2, who was driving Kinetic Honda bearing registration No. MP-09-JA-2109 dashed the appellant with the result appellant fell down and sustained 3-4 fractures. It was alleged that appellant was hospitalized number of times on number of occasions. Appellant was operated and permanent disability was alleged to the extent of 30%. It was alleged that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3. It was prayed that compensation be awarded. The claim petition was contested by respondent No. 3 on various grounds alleging that respondent No. 2 was not possessing valid licence, therefore, claim petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that an attempt is made by the appellant to get higher amount of compensation. It was also directed that appellant be prosecuted as appellant has prepared forged letter of her appointment, against which present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for appellant argued at length and submits that impugned award is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. Learned Counsel submits that appellant was hospitalized from 25.8.2000 for six times in number of hospitals. It is submitted that appellant sustained 4-5 fractures, which includes Tibia, Fibula. It is submitted that appellant, sustained injury in her eye and permanent disability has been assessed 30%, which has been held by the learned Tribunal as grievous disablement but not permanent in nature. It is submitted that claim petition has been dismissed on the ground that appellant has made an attempt to get higher amount of compensation. The other ground, which has been taken by the learned Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition was that upon investigation, appellant informed the Investigator that appellant has received a letter of appointment as Teacher from Renuka Bal Mandir, but Investigator found that no letter was issued by the school authorities. Learned Counsel submits that both of the grounds cannot be a ground for dismissal of claim petition. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and adequate compensation.