GOVINDA Vs. KALABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern the disposal of connected appeal No. 1638 of 2008 filed by the Insurance Company against the same award. Facts are common for disposal of these appeals. Both appeals challenge quantum of compensation awarded by the Xth MACT Indore in MV Case No. 88/2006.

(2.) Necessary facts in brief, as found by the Tribunal and which are no longer in dispute, are that on 21.12.2005, appellant met with an accident. A Scorpio, bearing registration No. MP 09-B 5212 hit the appellant's scooter causing grievous injuries including compound comminuted fracture of Right tibia fibula and fracture of left medial malleolus. At the relevant time, respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle (Scorpio), which belonged to his father respondent No. 2, and it was insured with respondent No. 3. Tribunal found that respondent No. 1 was responsible for the said accident on account of his rash and negligent driving, therefore, directed respondents jointly and severally to pay Rs. 1,90,000.00 as the amount of compensation.

(3.) At the time of hearing of appeals, we requested Shri Anil Goyal Advocate to act as amicus-curiae. True to the noble and high traditions of the Bar, Shri Goyal, discharged his duties as an amicus-curiae and we record our sincere thanks to Shri Goyal for the assistance rendered by him in order to decide this appeal. Shri Goyal filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 to bring on record subsequent X-ray reports and the disability certificate issued by the MYM Medical Board. In absence of any objection by the learned counsel for the insurance company and owner and driver of the offending vehicle, additional evidence was allowed in the interest of justice and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to decide the appeal on merit. Now, in the light of the evidence available on record, the question is, does the amount awarded by Tribunal represent just amount of compensation.