RUKKO DEVI Vs. FRONTIER BUS SERVICE & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal, stands directed, by the disabled claimant/appellant herein, against, the award pronounced, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., upon, MACP No. 6-P/2006, on, 30.04.2013, wherethrough, compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs.70,000/- stood assessed, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant. The apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, stood fastened, upon respondent No.3, the latter being the insurer of the offending bus, (a) and, upon respondents No.4 and 5, being owner, and, driver of the offending tempo, hence, proportionately, in, 70:30 per centum, (b) given the learned Tribunal recording a finding, that, the disability entailed upon the claimant, being a sequel of contributory negligence, of, the driver of the offending vehicles concerned.

(2.) It has been fairly stated at the bar by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting litigants, that, respondents No.3, whereuponwhom, the apposite indemnificatory liability, in, the afore 70 per centum, visa-vis, the afore stated compensation amount, hence, stood fastened, (i) has not preferred any appeal before this court, wherethrough, it has concerted to make a challenge, upon, the afore fastening thereon, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability. However, respondents No.4, and, 5, whereuponwhom, in 30 per centum hence indemnificatory liability stood fastened, rather instituted cross-objection No.52 of 2014, hence, therethrough, they assail the afore fastening of the indemnificatory liability rather thereon. On the other hand, the claimant's appeal is directed, for, seeking enhancement of compensation amount, as, assessed qua her.

(3.) The claimant suffered, as, pronounced by disability certificate, borne in Ex.PW1/A, and, proven by PW-1, a, disability to the extent of 20%, disability whereof was a sequel of fracture of cervical spine C-2. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief, has, made a forthright, and, candid articulation qua hence the claimant being forbidden, rather to perform any hard manual work. The learned learned tribunal under heads (i) attendant charges, (ii) pain and suffering, (iii) loss of amenities and future disability, (iv) expenses towards medical expenditure, and, also (v) towards expenses incurred towards transportation charges, hence respectively assessed compensation, in, a quantum as echoed in the impugned award.