KEWAL CHAND JAIN Vs. PRATAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 by the claimant has been preferred being dissatisfied with an Award dated 25th August 2005 in claim case No. 34/2004 passed by the Third Additional Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Guna (M.P.).

(2.) The facts of the case are that on 30th April 2003, in night, the appellant/injured alongwith others was trevelling from Guna to Indore in Tempo Trex (jeep) owned by the respondent No.2, driven by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No.3-Insurance Company. In mid-way, it is alleged that the driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle rashly which resulted in collision with a truck from front side. Co-passenger, Devendra Kumar Jain succumbed to injuries on the spot while the claimants and others were seriously injured. An F.I.R. was lodged at police station, Chachoda district Guna on which Crime No. 154/03 for offence punishable under Section 304-A, 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. was registered against the driver. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court. It is stated that in the accident, the applicant's left leg, left hand, back, chest and head were seriously injured and for treatment and impairment of injured parts he was to spend long period in Suyash Hospital, Indore and Greater Kailash Nursing Home at Indore and huge amount was spent in medicine and surgical operations. After treatment, his left part of body was paralyzed. At the time of accident, he was 70 years old retired civil court employee and was getting regular pension and due to his fit mental and physical condition of body and his pre-service experience he was earning Rs.2,000/- from out-side job prior to accident. After accident, he suffered economic loss. After considering the evidence on record, the learned tribunal awarded Rs. 1,43,977/- under all heads, payable jointly or severally, against the respondents. Being aggrieved by the award, he has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the award passed by the tribunal is on very lower side which looking to the injuries and expenses is liable to be enhanced. It is submitted that the injured, due to accident, sustained 25%-75% permanent disability which was fatal to his remaining life looking to his advanced age. It is submitted that due to injuries, he became totally dependent on his family members and life became curse for him. For pain and sufferings which he received from accident were severe and no compensation was awarded to him in this regard. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned award may be modified with appropriate bank interest on the enhanced compensation which this court deems fit and proper.