POORAN MAL Vs. LAXMAN SINGH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the claimant appellant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/ - that was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur vide award dated 4/1/2002 for the injuries sustained by the appellant in a road accident, which took place on 2/11/1993 involving the vehicle insured with respondent No. 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal erred in law while accepting loss of income at Rs. 1450/ - only, whereas before accident, he was earning Rs. 2400/ - per month and at least Rs. 15,000/ - should have been awarded for loss of income for six months. Learned Tribunal also awarded a meager amount of compensation of Rs. 45,000/ - for three fractures and grievous injuries, which is very low in view of the fact that in the compromise arrived at in the Lok Adalat, Rs. 25,000/ - itself was allowed for each fracture therefore, he should be awarded Rs. 75,000/ - for three grievous injuries. Rs. 3550/ - has been awarded for the actual medical expenses though more than Rs. 10,000/ - was incurred on his operation. Awarding compensation of Rs. 70,000/ - considering permanent disability of 35.01% is also towards the lower side because his leg was shortened by 2" and he is unable to walk properly. Nothing has been awarded for future prospects. The appellant was 42 years of age at the time of accident, which though learned Tribunal accepted but did not apply the multiplier at the age of 42 years as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., : (2009) 6 SCC 121.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 3 insurance company has opposed the appeal and argued that the award is just and reasonable because appellant has failed to produce the medical bills more than Rs. 10,000/ - as claimed by him therefore, the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in awarding Rs. 3550/ - towards the actual medical bills produced by the appellant on record. There was breach of policy as the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid license, insurance company was not informed about the accident and in non -compliance of mandatory provisions of the Insurance Act, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner to make payment of compensation to the claimant -appellant.