MANGESH Vs. JAGDISH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation amount awarded by the VIIIth Member, M.A.C.T., Indore in Claim Case No. 90/2004 vide award dated 13.5.2005, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation amount of Rs. 65,000 only for the grievous injuries sustained to the appellant on his left leg and right hand in a motor accident.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 3.9.2003 at about 9.30 a.m. the appellant was going on his motorcycle No. MP-09-JV-5739 with one Kamalsingh from Gadha Tekri to Indore, at that time one jeep No. GJ-09-B-3484, which was driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle of the appellant, which resulted in grievous injuries to the appellant on his left leg and right hand. This jeep was registered in the name of respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. The appellant was immediately taken to the Hospital for necessary treatment. Police has also registered a criminal case against the driver respondent No. 1 of driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The appellant remained under treatment for four months. On these allegations the appellant has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act against the respondents, claiming a compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000 from the respondents. The learned Tribunal after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record vide impugned award dated 13.5.2005 awarded compensation amount of Rs. 65,000 only in favour of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation amount, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 whereas learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 while supporting the impugned award submits that looking to the overall evidence on record and the nature of injuries sustained to the appellant, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation amount of Rs. 65,000 in favour of the appellant and no grounds are available for enhancement of the compensation amount, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.