SAJANSINGH Vs. MANOHARSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT by Mr. Kamal Tiwari, Advocate. Respondent No. 3 by Mr. Pradeep Gupta, Advocate. Heard on LA. No. 3953 of 2007, which is an application for condonation of delay. Sufficient ground is made out in the application for condonation of delay. Application is allowed. Delay stands condoned. With the consent of the parties matter heard finally.

(2.) THIS is an appeal filed by claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act against an award dated 9. 1. 2007, passed by learned first Additional M. A. C. T. , shajapur in Claim Case No. 56 of 2006. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 72,000 with interest to the claimants for the death of one Shivpalsingh, who died in vehicular accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and, if so, to what extent?

(3.) IT is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation, etc. It is for the reason that, firstly, all these findings are recorded in favour of claimants by Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants' favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or the insurance company either by way of cross-appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues.