STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. VIVEK AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vivek Agrawal, M.A. No. 149 of 1997 and Vivek Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, M.A. No. 563 of 1997, are proposed to be decided by this judgment since they arise out of the same award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in M.C.C. No. 317 of 1996 dated 17.1.1997.

(2.) On 11.3.1990 at about 11 a.m., Vivek Agrawal (claimant) was going on his motor cycle from Arera Colony to his residence, Dll/20, Char Imli, Bhopal. On the crossing of Reserve Bank Colony, Mohan Singh (driver) came from Char Imli driving jeep CPZ 4112 rashly and negligently and hit the motor cycle of the claimant without giving signal when claimant was turning towards his residence. Claimant fell down, came under the right side tyre of the jeep, sustained injuries and became unconscious. Jeep driver sped away from the spot. The claimant was brought home in state of unconsciousness, shifted to New Bhopal Hospital and after preliminary treatment, taken in serious condition to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, where he remained hospitalised up to 16.3.1990. On account of the accident, claimant suffered fracture of right hand, shoulder, feet, left leg, etc. He was also taken to Dr. K.T. Dholakia and Dr. H.R. Jhunjhunwala, Bombay for treatment. There he had remained from 16.3.1990 to 9.4.1990. After his treatment, the physical condition of the claimant did not improve significantly, disability prevailed with the claimant. Claimant who was a brilliant student throughout his education had passed IAS Preliminary Examination in 1989 and 1992 but could not sit in the final examination due to injuries suffered in this accident. His future has been marred. His eyesight has diminished. He cannot move about nor can he run and play. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 14,40,000 is claimed. State of Madhya Pradesh has denied the claim. Taking place of accident with vehicle CPZ 4112 has been denied. Therefore, it is submitted that the claim be rejected. Insurance company with which the motor cycle was insured has not admitted the liability. It is submitted that it has been impleaded without any basis.

(3.) On the pleadings of parties, Claims Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter the Claims Tribunal held that the accident took place as alleged resulting in serious injuries to the claimant resulting in permanent disablement to the extent of 27.3 per cent to shoulder and 45