LAWS(MPH)-2007-6-51

RAVINDRA RAWAT Vs. SHEIKH HUSSAIN

Decided On June 21, 2007
Ravindra Rawat Appellant
V/S
Sheikh Hussain Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assails the adequacy of the compensation awarded by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kukshi, District Dhar, in Claim Case No. 32 of 2004, by which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 69,850 in relation to the injuries sustained by the applicant, aged 3 years, in a motor accident including amputation of his left hand below elbow.

(2.) INSOFAR as the facts pleaded by the appellant are concerned, there does not appear any dispute between the parties. It was alleged that on 20.2.2004 at about 9 a.m., the respondent No. 2 driving a truck bearing registration No. MP 09 -KA 9758 collided with the appellant child causing severe injuries to him. On account of the nature of the injuries it became imperative to amputate his hand, which resulted in permanent disablement. The appellant was treated in the Primary Health Centre, Bagh, District Hospital, Barwani and in Baroda. In the treatment, it was alleged that an amount of Rs. 50,000 was spent.

(3.) THE Tribunal framed six issues, in view of the pleading of the parties and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck in question and as a result of the said accident, injury was caused to the appellant -claimant. In spite of the denial by the insurance company that the said truck was not insured with the said company, the Tribunal, on analysis of the evidence, held that the truck was, in fact, insured with the respondent No. 3 and the insurance company failed to prove that it was driven by a person at the time of accident, who did not hold a proper licence for driving the said vehicle. On perusal of the entire evidence and extent of the injuries sustained by the appellant (child), Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 69,850 as compensation. Considering that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is wholly inadequate, the appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement.