SWATANTRA KUMA Vs. QAMAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANT has filed this appeal under Section 110-Dof the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for enhancement of the compensation awarded in M.V.C. No. 68/79 vide award, dated 2nd May, 1985 by Additional Motor Acqidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal.

(2.) ON 6.1.1977the appellant who was a pillion rider on a motor cycle met with an accident by the use of motor vehicle, i.e. Jeep No. MPD 8349 owned by respondent No. 4, driven by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 3. The Tribunal on the evidence adduced by the parties recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver as a result of which the motor cyclist and pillion rider received severe multiple injuries. The claimant who is a photographer by profession was a pillion rider who received the simple communited fracture.of the shaft of right femur and a compound commu-nited fracture of right tibia and febula as a result of which he. was admitted in the hospital upon whom operation was performed on7.1.1977.He was dischargedon 2.2.1977. Again he was admitted on 8.3.1977 and discharged on 22.3.1977. Because of the injuries and operation performed by Dr. O.P. Sharma, an Orthopaedic Surgeon, who opined that because of the operation the appellant suffered 1.75" shortening in the right leg restricting movement of knee and ankle joints and wasting of muscles of thigh. Again after performing curating on 19.111977 Dr. O.P. Sharma advised him to consult Dr. K.T. Dholakia, an eminent Orthopaedic Surgeon of India who also performed operation for the permanent disability but the permanent disability was not reduced. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 3,25,000/- in various heads. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- in the head of permanent disability and Rs. 7,370/- towards hospital charges, medicines and special diet. On the total amount of compensation the interest was awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application.

(3.) IT was contended by Mr. V.P. Verma, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, that the accident occurred in 1977, therefore, recent comparable cases cannot be considered to enhance the compensation. It is also contended that the appellant did not claim any amount of interest even then the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till payment, hence in that count also no amount deserves to be awarded. The compensation so awarded is fair and just, hence no interference is warranted in appeal.