NARAYAN LAL Vs. GOVIND N GAJENDRA KUMAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 06.03.2002 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, whereby the claim of the appellant was partly allowed and Rs.12,000/- were awarded.

(2.) WHILE praying for enhancement of the compensation, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he received seven injuries, out of the said injuries one injury was grievous. The said injury resulted in permanent disablement. Due to accident, his capacity to lift the tyre has come to an end. The appellant has also sustained permanent disability to the extent of 7%. Permanent disablement certificate Ex.5 was also tendered in evidence, proved and exhibited. The injuries have resulted in permanent disablement to the extent of 7% and as such, the learned Tribunal ought to have determined the compensation by adopting suitable multiplier as his working capacity has been reduced to the extent of 7%. The second argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that claimant remained hospitalized for a considerable period of more than six months. The appellant was under treatment and during this period, he under went various operations and during the period of hospitalization and treatment, he has incurred huge amount. The learned Tribunal seriously erred in limiting treatment expenses to meagre extent. The learned Tribunal has failed to consider that while a person is seriously injured lying in hospital, it is not possible to collect each and every bill. Attendants/near relatives would prefer to provide for quick medicines, rather than for running to procure the bills. The amount claimed under this head deserves to be awarded.

(3.) MOREOVER, the appellant had filed an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of alleged disability. The application was dismissed. The appellant challenged the same by filing an appeal CMA No. 692/99 before the High Court. The same was dismissed as withdrawn. At the time of filing of the said application, the statement of Dr. Anamendra Sharma who had given the said certificate, was duly examined. In spite of the same, the said application was dismissed after considering the said statement. Thus, no fault can be found with the order, refusing to grant any compensation under this head.