NAVITA Vs. SHOBHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 4.12.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhabua in Claim Case No. 105 of 2006. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 65,000 with interest to the claimant for the injuries which appellant sustained in the accident. According to the claimant - appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence needs to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so, to what extent.

(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 for paying compensation, etc. It is for the reason that all these findings are recorded in favour of claimant by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimant's favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver either by way of cross -appeal or cross -objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is a lady aged 30 years and sustained injury in her right eye in a motor accident which took place on 6.5.2005. Appellant was hospitalised at Jhabua and thereafter at Baroda. Appellant was operated twice but could not save her eye, with the result an artificial eye was inserted, she has lost her vision of one eye. It is submitted that permanent disability of 40 per cent was caused to the appellant. It is submitted that under all the heads the amount awarded is on lower side. It is submitted that appellant has spent Rs. 50,000 in the treatment, the amount awarded is grossly inadequate hence prayed that appeal be allowed and amount be enhanced.