SHAILENDRA JAIN Vs. JOJAF AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant has filed this appeal against the Award dated 3rd Oct., 1996 passed by XIVth Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, in claim case No. 127/92 whereby his claim application was dismissed.

(2.) The appellants case was that on 21st Feb., 1990 he was going on his scooter towards Palasiya Square, Indore. When he was to take turn on right side for Chetak Arch building, non-applicant No. 1 came from opposite direction driving his scooter No. MBN-6518 insured with respondent No. 2 at a very high speed and dashed against him, as a result of which he sustained fracture in his left leg and injuries on other parts of the body. He was treated by Dr. Sethi. Plaster was applied on his leg. He could not attend his office for two months. He became permanently disabled. He filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 3,05,700.00. The respondents resisted the claim. Their case was that the appellant himself drove his scooter rashly and negligently which caused the accident. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company resisted the claim and inter alia pleaded that the offending vehicle was not insured with it and respondent No. 1 was also not having valid scooter driving licence. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter No. MBN-6518 driven by respondent No. 1. However, it held that it was not proved that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in his right leg. It also did not believe the disability certificate granted by Dr. Alok Verma and medical bills produced by the appellant. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Shri S.K. Jdln (Hatodwala), LC for the appellant, submitted that the learned Tribunal committed error in disbelieving the evidence of the appellant which has been corroborated by medical evidence also. The Tribunal was wrong in discarding the evidence of Dr. Alok Verma. From the evidence on record, it has been proved that the appellant suffered fracture of left leg and several injuries on his body and he spent huge amount on his treatment. He contended that adequate compensation be awarded. On the other hand, Shri M.L. Dhuper, LC for the respondents, supported the impugned award.