OMPRAKASH Vs. AASHISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 30.1.2008 passed by Member, M.A.C.T. Shajapur in Claim Case No. 51 of 2007. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,83,200 to the claimant by way of compensation for the injuries which appellant sustained in an accident. According to the claimant, i.e., appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, needs to be enhanced. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in compensation awarded and, if so, to what extent? 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 for paying compensation, etc. It is for the reason that, firstly, all these findings are recorded in favour of claimant by the learned Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in favour of claimants are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross-appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues.

(2.) As observed supra, it is an injury case. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time of accident, the appellant was 68 years of age. It is submitted that the right leg of appellant was amputated from the hip joint. It is submitted that appellant was hospitalised for a period of 4-5 months in different hospitals. He was operated six times. It is submitted that permanent disability was assessed as 100 per cent. It is submitted that though the appellant was a retired employee, but was running a video parlour. It is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,83,000, the break-up of which is as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that since the artificial leg has been affixed and the appellant was a retired teacher, therefore, there is no financial loss of income. He submits that no case for enhancement of awarded amount is made and the appeal be dismissed.