UDAIRAM BALKISHAN JOSHI Vs. MOHAMMADUSMAN SHAKHREHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award given by the Third Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 182 of 1980 dated 25-2-1982.

(2.) THE short facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant filed the claim petition before the lower Tribunal under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act on the allegations that on 27-3-1980, the appellant was going on his bicycle towards Premsukh talkies coming from Nandlalpura Chauraha. When he reached the Nandlalpura bridge, the respondent No. 1 while driving matador No. CPF-8809 rashly and negligently reached the spot and dashed the matador against the bicycle and the appellant due to which the appellant received about 22 injuries on his body and both side of his ribs were fractured. The appellant was employed as a peon in the District Excise Office. Due to the injuries, he suffered physical and mental agony and also incurred loss of earning. He, therefore, claimed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. The respondents resisted the claim on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, respondent No. 2 was not liable to pay any compensation. The learned Member, Accident Claims Tribunal framed 11 issues to decide the claim and held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the relevant matador by respondent No. 1 and the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. His bicycle was also damaged and he also incurred medical expenditure. However, the claimant was awarded only Rs. 5,000/- on account of physical pain and mental agony, Rs. 500/- towards treatment and Rs. 100/- for the repair of the cycle. As such, an award of Rs. 5,600/- was passed in favour of the appellant. The appellant had also made a claim for getting Rs. 1,150/- for the loss of his income and Rs. 13,250/- on account of permanent disability; but the compensation on these two grounds was disallowed by the lower Tribunal. Hence this appeal.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Neema, the learned lower Tribunal has given the award on a very low side. His argument is that in no case the loss of earnings could be disallowed and if the Tribunal was not inclined to grant the compensation under the head of permanent disability, it could have granted higher amount by way of general damages because in view of 22 injuries coupled with the fracture of ribs. As such the appellant was entitled to get much more compensation tham what has been awarded to the appellant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Shri Dhupar argues that the award has been given in accordance with the evidence on record and does not require any interference.