RANJEET SINGH Vs. BALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 05/08/2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratlam, in Claim Case No.36/2009 . By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.15,973/ - with interest to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury which he sustained in an accident. According to claimant i.e. appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need 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 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 firstly 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 or insurance company 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 looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate, which deserves to be enhanced. It is submitted that the appellant was on leave for a period of 125 days, but no amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal on that account. For this contention learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Yashpal Gaur Vs. Meena Suri, 1995 ACJ 480 wherein Divisional Bench of this Court held that compensation for the loss of leave which the injured had taken for his treatment is admissible. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Hifajat Ali Vs. Ajijurehman, 2004(4) MPLJ, Note -2 wherein the claimant was on leave for six months and 25 days due to hospitalization and treatment for injuries in scooter accident, this Court held that appellant is entitled to salary for the said period by way of compensation as he could have used leave for other useful purpose. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Jagdish Prashad Singh Vs. Umed, 2012 ACJ 2096 wherein Delhi High Court held that injured is entitled to be compensated for loss of leave even if he was paid salary. On the strength of aforesaid position of law learned counsel submits that the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and amount of compensation be enhanced.