DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs. LAXMI NARAYAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is claimant's appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena in Case No. 54/03.

(2.) Claimant is said to be 12 years old boy who had sustained certain injuries on his left tibia and fibula. For the aforesaid injuries sustained, claimant was awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,500.00 in all. Inter alia contending that the compensation awarded is very much on the lower side, this appeal is filed for enhancement of the same. It is stated that on 16th Aug., 2002 claimant was going on-his side of the road, a vehicle driven by respondent No. 2, belonging to the respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3/Insurance Company came and dashed against the claimant, as a result, he sustained fracture on both his legs. Claiming he has sustained permanent disability for which he was treated by doctor-Suresh Chand Bandil, claim petition was filed. On the basis of evidences and materials that have came on record, learned Tribunal has found that no permanent disability is proved, only a chip fracture on the left leg is established and finding claimant to have spent only Rs. 1,500.00 on medical expenses, compensation is awarded for the same amount. Further a sum of Rs. 500.00 is awarded for pain and suffering and a sum of Rs. 500.00 for special diet is awarded. Accordingly, a total compensation of Rs. 2,500.00is awarded.

(3.) Smt. Meena Singhal, learned Counsel for appellant taking me through the documents i.e. discharge ticket Ext. P/9, disability certificate Ext. P/21 and statements of P.W./3 doctor Suresh Chand Bandil argues that as permanent disability is established, learned Tribunal has committed grave error in only awarded a compensation of Rs. 500.00 for pain and suffering and no compensation for the injuries sustained is awarded. Smt. Singhal argues even thoughpermanent disability is not established, this is a case where the appellant had sustained fracture on his left tibia and fibula bone and therefore in accordance with law laid down in the followings judgments, compensation from 15,000.00 to 25,000.00 should have been awarded. Accordingly, she prays for enhancement of compensation. The judgments relied upon by Smt. Singhal are : Mahesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Vidyavati, 1996 (1) M.P.W.N. S.N. 10 , Garli Bai Vs. Kantilal and two others, 2002 (2) A.C.C. 113 , and Laxminaraxjan Vs. Hari Singh, 2002 (2) A.C.C. 44 .