ARUN CHAUHAN Vs. SAKHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal preferred under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') the claimant-appellant has called in question the sustainability of the award passed on 25.11.1994 by the 4th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 66 of 1989 whereby the said Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000 for the injuries sustained by him.

(2.) The facts as have been uncurtained are that the claimant-appellant was an Engineering College student and was aged about 20 years. On 19.9.88, he was travelling in a jeep bearing the registration No. MBS 129 (taxi) along with other passengers. Unfortunately, the said taxi was hit by a truck bearing registration No. MBT 9025 which was driven rashly and negligently by the driver, respondent No. 1 herein. Because of this accident, the claimant appellant received serious injuries on the head, eyes and collar-bone and ankle. According to him, he was admitted in Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai from 20.9.1988 to 17.10.88 and thereafter, for sometime he remained unconscious for 12 days and his eyes became weak, his memory became faint and he suffered mental and physical pain. It was also put forth before the Tribunal that CAT-Scan was done and he had undergone treatment for 2 to 3 years under various doctors. He also sustained injury to the eyes. He developed keratitis. It is also stated that there was fracture of collarbone and a rod was inserted. It was also pleaded by the claimant that because of the accident he could not pursue the study of Engineering course. Averring these facts a claim of Rs. 1,00,659.67 was put forth in the claim petition. The claim of the appellant was resisted by the respondent No. 3, National Insurance Co. Ltd. To further his case the claimant examined himself and a number of witnesses. Dr. G.D. Agrawal, Neurosurgeon in Bhilai Hospital, Dr. A.K. Banerjee, Eye Surgeon of the said hospital and Dr. P.L. Chandrakar were examined as PWs 1, 2 and 4 respectively. The claimant examined himself as PW 3 and Ajit Chawra as PW 5.

(3.) Learned Tribunal after considering the evidence brought on record, came to hold that there was not sufficient evidence that the claimant had developed any weakness in the eyes. He has also arrived at the conclusion that in spite of the injuries in the brain the claimant can lead the life of a normal man. He considered the fracture of collar-bone and insertion of rod. Taking note of the fact that the claimant had suffered for 2 to 3 years and was compelled to postpone his study of Engineering, the Tribunal granted Rs. 30,000 towards compensation. The Tribunal has also directed that the said amount should be paid within two months from the date of award, failing which 12 per cent interest would become payable.