MOHANDAS Vs. KARAMAT KHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by claimant/appellant Mohandas under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") against the impugned judgment dated 30/1/2014 passed by the XIV Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 295/2011. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 49,312/ - (Rupees Forty nine thousand three hundred twelve only) for the disability and injuries sustained by the appellant in the road accident.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on the date of the accident i.e. 10/10/2007 appellant Mohandas was going as a passenger in the bus bearing registration No. MP 13/P -0195, which was driven by the respondent No. 1, from Gram Patadiya Dhakad Sarangpur to Ujjain when the bus reached at Maksi -Ujjain road Dhandhly at that time on account of the rashness and negligence of the respondent No. 2 the bus turned turtled and as a result of which the passengers of the bus sustained grievous injuries and the present appellant has received injuries on the head and he a fracture and also received injuries on his sole (bottom of the foot) and fingers and the appellant has lost his memory and he treated in the Murelydhar hospital Maksi and Sudhanshu Charitable Trust hospital and he was referred to M.Y. Hospital and he had admitted there from 10/10/2007 to 12/10/2007. The appellant incurred Rs. 50,000/ - as medical expenses. The appellant was aged 41 years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs. 10,000/ - per month since he was a Teacher by profession. As a result of the accident, he is unable to walk properly and also he is not fit for his day -today work. A report was filed at the police station Maksi, District Shajapur against the respondent No. 1 and crime was registered. The bus was owned by the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company with whom the vehicle has been insured. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ - as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Non -applicant Nos. 1 & 2 remained ex -parte in the lower Court. The non -applicant No. 3/respondent Insurance Company resisted the claim and took up the stock plea that the driver did not have any proper valid licence and hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant/claimant has vehemently urged the fact that the Claims Tribunal had erred in awarding such a meager amount. Counsel submitted that the permanent disability has not been properly assessed by the Tribunal. He contended that the appellant sustained 15% disability due to fracture on the head and the sole and fingers. Firstly the appellant claimant had been treated in the Murelydhar hospital Maksi and Sudhanshu Charitable Trust hospital and thereafter he referred to M.Y. Hospital and he was admitted there from 10/10/2007 to 12/10/2007. Counsel submitted that according to the certificate issued by Dr. Bapat, the appellant got 15% disability. Whereas, Counsel for the insurance company submitted that only 5% disability has been assessed in the whole body by the Tribunal, which is inappropriate under the circumstances.