SUDHIR JAIN Vs. VIRENDRA SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimant/appellant against an Award dated 23rd July 2005 issued in Claim Case No. 7/2005 by the Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhind directing payment of compensation of Rs. 28,354/- in favour of the injured/appellant in all the heads for injuries sustained by him, payable by the owner, driver and the Insurance Company with a request for enhancement of the amount to the extent of Rs. 4,95,000/-.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that on 10th December 2002, on the way of crossing of Bangla Bazar- Lashkar Bhind, when the claimant/injured was going on foot by the side of the road, he met with an accident with a Tractor bearing No. MP30M/4576 which was driven rashly and negligently by driver Virendra Singh (respondent No.1), owned by Jabar Singh (respondent No.2) and insured with New India Assurance Company Bhind (respondent No.3). The claimant was severely injured and his lower 1/3rd part of shaft of humorous bone was fractured. He was under treatment for several days. It is also admitted that at the time of accident, the claimant by selling milk used to earn Rs. 4,000/-, monthly but after accident he has lost his capacity to earn that much amount. It is also admitted that after treatment, his fractured bone was united and the disability sustained by him does not seem to be of permanent nature. Since, the amount awarded by the learned tribunal is not in accordance with the nature of the injuries, the claimant has come up in this appeal for enhancement of the award.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended before this court that the tribunal ignored the nature of injury sustained by the appellant and it has not determined the compensation in this aspect. It is submitted that no adequate compensation was awarded under the necessary heads such as pains and suffering, loss of income during period of treatment and future loss which may be sustained by the appellant in his business. No compensation is awarded for his future treatment which may be borne in removing the rod inserted by operation. Further no compensation is awarded for special diet which was necessary for speedy recovery. On these premised submissions, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal adequate compensation under the heads mentioned above may be awarded.