MANOJ Vs. BALURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the claimant, against the award dated 4.2.2004 passed by 2nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in M.V. Case No. 136 of 2002. It has not been disputed before us that on 31.8.2001 appellant had sustained bodily injuries in a motor road accident. The accident was between two vehicles - truck No. MP 09-D 3147 driven by respondent No. 2, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3 and truck bearing registration No. MP 09-K 8575, driven by the appellant himself. According to the appellant accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 2. The aforesaid fact stands proved from the evidence adduced by the appellant. After appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000 to the appellant to be recovered from respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally. No liability has been fastened on respondent No. 4, owner of the truck which being driven by the appellant. The appeal is for enhancement.

(2.) According to the appellant he had sustained injuries in his backbone and his face was disfigured in the said accident. He was required to take initial treatment in Jaora Hospital and was shifted to various other hospitals at Indore. Due to the said accident he was unemployed for more than 12 months. Prior to it he was working as driver and was getting Rs. 4,000 as salary, per month. His injuries have been proved by PW 3, Dr. Pradeep Choudhury, who has given him permanent disability certificate, Exh. P1. In Exh. P1 the permanent disability has been assessed at 12 per cent. Dr. Choudhury has deposed that he is still having pain in his back and his movement of femur bone is restricted. He will not be in a position to squat on the floor and in long driving he is likely to develop some sort of problem. Appellant's evidence is in conformity to the evidence of his doctor, who had examined him after two years from the date of the accident. Appellant was aged about 27 years at the time of the accident and was working as driver of a heavy duty vehicle. It has also not been disputed before us that after the accident appellant was hospitalised for a long period, but he has himself admitted that now he has resumed the profession and is once again working as driver, but with his permanent disability, which is confined only to 12 per cent.

(3.) Looking the matter from all angles, we are of opinion that the amount awarded is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. At the time of accident he was a young person. As he would grow old his physical impairment is likely to increase. Obviously he may not be able to perform his duties as proficiently as he used to do prior to the accident. Thus, keeping all these facts in mind we are of the opinion that a total amount of Rs. 1,00,000 would be just, proper and adequate amount of compensation to be awarded to appellant.