OMPRAKASH Vs. PRAKASHCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ActTM), has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation as the appellant feels dissatisfied with the amount of compensation Rs. 1,42,000/- awarded to him by 13th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, District-Indore (hereinafter for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 10/04/2007 passed in Claim Case No.166/2006, for the loss allegedly suffered by him due to injuries sustained in vehicular accident. The necessary facts, briefly stated, are that on 18/11/2004, around 12:30 in the afternoon, while the appellant was coming on his Motorcycle bearing registration No. M.P.-13-JF-4571, to Indore with Madan Singh, as pillion rider, near Police Station Sanwer, Maruti Gypsy bearing registration No. MH-04-AJ-6927, belonging to respondent-No.-1-Prakashchand, insured with respondent No.3-Oriental Insurance Company and driven at the relevant time by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Motorcycle. It was further averred that in this accident, the appellant suffered fracture of both the hands and legs and a number of other injuries on the face, head, back, chest and other parts of the body; he was immediately taken to Arvindo Hospital, Indore, where he remained hospitalized from 18/11/2004 to 26/11/2004 and as radius bone of both the legs was found fractured, therefore, by way of operation knailing was done. It was also averred that from 26/11/2004 to 11/12/2004 the appellant remained under treatment as indoor patient at Arihant Hospital and Research Center, Indore and was operated upon and skin grafting was also carried out.

(2.) Thereafter, he again remained hospitalized from 10/01/2005 to 15/01/2005, in Arihant Hospital. It was further averred that he suffered 70 percent permanent disability, as per certificate (Ex. P/250). The appellant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50 Lacs under various heads, averring that he was earning @ Rs.5,000/- per month from his watch shop and that due to disability he is not able to earn his livelihood.

(3.) Umesh respondent No.4 is the owner of the motorcycle which was insured with respondent No. 5- National Insurance Company.