PAARSINGH Vs. JUWANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by Additional Member M.A.C.T., Jhabua in M.V.C. No. 19/2004. By the impugned award dated 5.2.2005, learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 29,512 to the appellant as damages/compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident occurred on 11.7.2002.

(2.) BASED upon evidence, learned Claims Tribunal found that on the fateful day accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 of the vehicle belonging to respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3. It was also found that the appellant and co-passengers sustained injuries and the Tempo in which they were travelling overturned. Number of claim petitions were filed before the Claims Tribunal including the one preferred by the present appellant. As mentioned hereinabove, Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 29,512 to the appellant as compensation.

(3.) AFTER having heard rival submissions and going through the evidence available on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, amount awarded by Claims Tribunal appears to be on lower side. It is clear that appellant remained hospitalized from 11.7.2002 to 28.7.2002. Appellant submitted medical bills for Rs. 28,569 which he had incurred on treatment. Nothing has been awarded under this head on flimsy reasoning. From the evidence available on record, it is clear that appellant had undergone treatment. In view of aforesaid and in absence of any other cogent evidence, Tribunal ought to have awarded the expenses incurred by appellant on medical treatment. Accordingly, we allow a sum of Rs. 28,569 under the head of medical expenses. Appellant is resident of Meghnagar, District Jhabua and undertook the treatment in Jainak Hospital, Dahod in Gujarat. It is not expected that appellant remained alone during the period when he was hospitalized. There must have been one attendant to look after his needs. Besides travelling expenses, there are so many hidden expenses which are incurred when a person is hospitalized. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, appellant would be entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 5,000 under this head and Rs. 2,500 towards special diet. From the evidence of Doctor (A. W. 1), it is clear that a piece of left elbow bone was removed, but it cannot be safely inferred that the appellant sustained permanent disability as claimed by him. Removal of piece of bone has resulted in some disfigurement or may cause some impairment in full use of left arm. Learned Counsel for appellant vehemently argued that nothing has been awarded towards amenities and expectation of life which has been impaired on account of disability in the left arm. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, appellant is entitled to recover under this head a sum of Rs. 5,000. The amount awarded as general damages also appear to be on the lower side and the appellant is entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 35,000 under this head instead of Rs. 25,000 as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 80,581 which is rounded off to Rs. 81,000. This amount shal 1 carry simple rate of interest i. e., @ 9% per annum from the date of presentation of claim petition till it is actually paid. The award is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. Appeal is, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove with costs throughout. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,500, if certified.