SURESH KUMAR Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also dispose of Misc. Appeal No. 199 of 1981 (M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Suresh Kumar and Ors.) as both these appeals are directed against the award dated 9-5-1981 passed by the 3rd Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, in claim case No. 210 of 1979.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows: Passenger No. MPN 7311 is owned by Pradeep Kumar son of Tejkaran. On the date of incident it was being driven by the non-applicant Babulal son of Banshilal in the course of his employment with the non-applicant No. 1. It was insured with the non-applicant No. 3 the United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Passenger bus No. CPH 8338 is owned by the non-applicant No. 4 M. P. State Road Transport Corporation and on the date of the incident it was being driven by the non-applicant No. 5 Patiram Sharma in the course of his employment with the non-applicant No. 4. The claimant was travelling in bus No. MPN 7311 from Indore to Ujjain on 18-6-79. When the bus reached near Sanwer bus No. CPH 8338 came from the opposite direction and dashed against bus No. MPN 7311. The claimant was injured is the accident. He sustained compound fractures of radius and ulna of his right hand and the was also fractured. The claimant filed an application Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident against the non-applicants. According to him the accident was caused on account of the negligence of the drivers of both the buses in driving the buses in the course of their employment with the owners of the buses. The non-applicants contested the claim.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the claimant contended that having regard to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the premanent disability caused to him the amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is too inadequate and requires to be suitably enhanced. He also contended that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the claimant has not proved that he paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as fees to Dr. Sahani who preformed the operations and treated the claimant.