KANHIYALAL Vs. VISHNU GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimants under section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 5. 9. 2006, passed by Additional M. A. C. T. , jhabua in Claim Case No. 220 of 2005. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,23,500 with interest to the claimants for the death of one Kanhiyalal, who died in a vehicular accident. According to the claimants, the compensation awarded is on the lower side and hence, it needs to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal, the claimant has 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?

(2.) 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 the claimants by the 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 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.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for appellants submit that appellants are legal representatives of the deceased Kanhiyalal, who sustained injuries in a motor accident, which took place on 27. 6. 1997. It is submitted that deceased Kanhiyalal sustained grievous injuries for which he was treated at Mumbai, jhabua, Indore and Dahod. It is submitted that after filing of the claim petition kanhiyalal died on 19. 11. 2001. Learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,18,500 on account of medical expenses incurred by deceased kanhiyalal. It is also submitted that since kanhiyalal died, therefore, the appellants are entitled for only pecuniary losses and not entitled for non-pecuniary losses. It is submitted that on account of loss of income, travelling expenses, special diet and expenses incurred on attendants no amount has been awarded.