LAWS(MPH)-2008-3-118

SHIV KUMAR Vs. DINESH

Decided On March 03, 2008
SHIV KUMAR Appellant
V/S
DINESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 16.1.2004, passed by IInd Additional MACT, Khargone, in Claim Case No. 33/2002. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 15,700/ -. with interest to the claimant for the injuries sustained by appellant. According to claimant, 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 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 claimants by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants' favour are under challenge at the instance of the respondents 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 ail these issues.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. Along with the appeal an application was filed by the appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, whereby number of documents has been submitted to demonstrate that appellant had been further treated for his urinary infection at Chandigarh. Appellant was hospitalized from 9.8.2004 to 28.8.2004. It is also submitted that appellant spent a sum of : Rs. 25,000/ - in his treatment. Learned counsel submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate, which deserves to be enhanced.