SUDARSHAN PRASAD SONI Vs. SHEIKH NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both these appeals under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, one by the claimant for enhancement of compensation and another by the owner challenging the liability imposed upon him arise out of a same accident and a common award is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Umariya, in Claim Case No. 18/2005, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Claimant Sudarshan Prasad Soni in M.A. No. 2691/2006 was travelling in a Tempo Trax bearing No. MP18-D/0305 owned by appellant Smt. Kaushalya Bai in M.A. No. 2653/2006 and driven by Sheikh Nigam one of the respondents in both the cases and insured with the United India Insurance Company - respondent No. 3 in both the cases. It is said that on 13.10.2004 the vehicle was coming from Bilaspur to village Kaudiya and due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle namely Shri Sheikh Nigam the vehicle had turned turtle and Shri Sudarshan Prasad Soni sustained various injuries on his head, ear, eyes, chest, etc. He was treated in various hospitals i.e. in District Hospital, Umariya by private Doctors, in Umariya and Katni and thereafter in Medical College, Jabalpur. Claiming that he has sustained 40% disability because of the injury caused, a claim petition was filed making a claim of Rs. 2,80,600 on the ground that he was earning Rs. 8,000 per month, he had spent about Rs. 80,000 on his treatment. Rs. 5,600 for coining to Umariya and Jabalpur for treatment and Rs. 20,000 for mental ailment and Rs. 70,000 for permanent ailment. Based on the totality of the evidence and material that came on record, a compensation of Rs. 34,500 has been granted and it is held that the 40% disability indicated in the Medical Certificate Document No. 1 is not proved in accordance with law, the Doctors have not been examined and, therefore, the claim for disability is rejected. Seeking enhancement of compensation, M.A. No. 2691/2006 is filed by the claimant. However, while passing the award impugned on 3.5.2006, as the Tribunal has found that the vehicle in question was a private vehicle, was registered and insured as a private vehicle but after collecting fare from the passengers it was being driven as a commercial vehicle, the Insurance Company is exonerated from payment of compensation and liability is imposed upon the owner Smt. Kaushalya Bai. Hence, M.A. No. 2653/2006 by the owner of the vehicle.

(2.) Mr. Shakti Prakash Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellant appearing in M.A. No. 2691/2006 challenged the award mainly on the ground that once permanent disability to the extent of 40% is established from the Medical Board's report document No. 1 rejecting this claim was not proper. That apart, he submitted that for the serious injuries sustained by the appellant which is found to be grievous in nature, payment of total compensation of Rs. 34,500 was not sufficient.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant in M.A. No. 2653/2006 argued that the finding of the vehicle being used as a commercial vehicle was not correct and the same being a perverse finding, the liability be imposed upon the Insurance Company. That apart, he argued that as the compensation granted is adequate, no further interference be made in the claim for enhancement made by the claimant in M.A. No. 2691/2006.