GOPAL Vs. RAJENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by the claimant -Appellant under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against an award dated 20th December, 1978 passed by the Second Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 106 of 1976 whereby he has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,997.81 p. though the Appellant had put up a claim for Rs. 29,750/ -.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this appeal which are no longer in dispute and as also found proved on evidence by the lower Court, are that on 6.4.76 at about 3.30 p.m. in the afternoon, the Appellant, who is a mechanic while driving a scooter on the Pardeshipura road met with an accident in such a manner that the tempo number MPO -9567 belonging to Respondent No. 2 Mahendra Kumar and driven by its driver Respondent No. 1 Rajendra, coming from the opposite direction, dashed against him due to which he received injuries on his forehead and was confined in the hospital for treatment for about 23 days ; that the said tempo at the relevant time was insured with Respondent No. 3, New India Assurance Company Ltd. The injuries sustained by the Appellant as a result of this accident have been proved by the medical evidence of Dr. Shitalkumar Bandi (P. W. 4.) and Dr. K. C. Shukla (P. W. 5) from which it has been established that the injury on the forehead which also resulted in fracture has caused permanent disfiguration which corroborates the testimony of the Appellant himself. As the factum of accident and the nature of injury sustained by him are not disputed it is not necessary for me to reconsider that evidence. Besides the Respondent did not lead any evidence on that point at all. The only question challenged on behalf of the Appellant is regarding the quantum of compensation.

(3.) THE learned Member of the Tribunal thought it proper to award Rs. 402.81 p. for medicines, Rs. 345/ - on account of loss in earning during the period in which he was confined to the hospital, Rs. 250/ -for milk and Rs. 1,000/ - for the mental pain and suffering, in all Rs. 1997.81 along with further interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the said claim petition. The learned Counsel for the Appellant, after taking me through the whole evidence submitted that on account of the injury on the head and face, there has been a permanent disfiguration which has naturally reduced his prospects of marriage. He further submitted that considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant on a vital part of the body his statement that after the said accident his daily earning capacity as a mechanic has reduced from Rs. 25/ -per day to Rs. 7/ - per day and that he cannot work for more than 15 to 20 days in a month, has not at all been challenged on behalf of the Respondents. He further submitted that the Appellant has also deposed that after the said head injury he often has head ache on account of which he is mentally disturbed and even though for this ailment he has examined Dr. K. G. Shukla (P.W. 5), the learned Member of the Tribunal was not justified in severely criticizing the testimony of the said doctor merely because he examined the Appellant only once or that he himself being not a Neurologist has advised the Appellant to consult a specialist Neurologist for the mental trouble. He, therefore, after referring to the case law submitted that the Appellant being a young man and a mechanic, having suffered injury on the head and also a permanent disfiguration on his forehead, the learned Member has committed an error in awarding such a low and meagre compensation.