SANDEEP Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the award dated 25.8.2004, passed by Additional MACT, Kannod, in Claim Case No. 192/02, whereby a sum of Rs. 77,543/ - has been awarded to the claimant as compensation on account of injuries sustained by him, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal alleging that appellant was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. M.P. 09 G.B. 9100, as passenger. The said bus was being driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. It was alleged that the bus was driven rashly and negligently. It was further alleged that another bus bearing registration No. M.P. 37 F 0108 was coming from other side, which was driven by respondent No. 4, owned by respondent No. 5 and insured with respondent No. 6. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles accident took place in which appellant sustained fracture in spine and also kidney of appellant was damaged. Appellant was hospitalized for a period of 35 days. Permanent disability was assessed @ 20%. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 77,543/ -, break -up of which is as under :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that in the doctor's statement it has came that now the appellant is hail and hearty and no permanent disability was found to the appellant. It is submitted that in the cross -objections filed by respondent No. 3 the findings of the learned Tribunal regarding the imposition of liability of respondents No. 1 to 3 in toto is challenged. Learned counsel submits that since it was head on collission and the criminal case was registered against the driver of both the vehicles, therefore, there ought to have been apportionment of the compensation. It is also submitted that from the spot map Exhibit P -3 it is evident that the vehicle which was insured with respondent No. 3 is going in its right direction. It is also submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. Learned counsel further submits that since appellant was passenger, therefore, at the most, it could have been a case of composite negligence.