SHANTI LAL Vs. SONU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a hapless victim of road accident, has craved for justice in the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988'). Cause of grievance of the appellant, as emerges out from the memo of appeal, is inadequacy of quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi (for short, 'learned Tribunal') by its impugned award dated 21st of February 2012. Apposite facts, arranged in the chronological order, are detailed herein under:

(2.) On the fateful day of 11th of December 2009 at about 2:45 PM, while undertaking journey from Gulabganj to Revdar on a motorbike, which was driven at a moderate speed by its driver Popatlal, the unfortunate calamity occurred near village Dabani. Although driver of the motorcycle with all precautions plied the vehicle towards left side of the road strictly adhering to traffic rules, but despite his all safety measures, it collided with a bus coming from Revdar and as a consequence of this head on collision of vehicles, the appellant suffered grave and serious injuries. The cause of accident was overtact of the first respondent driver of Truck No. HR-46-B-3824 and the accident occurred at the National Highway near curve of village Dabani Bridge. At the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle dashed with the motorbike at its front wheel with optimum speed while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Occurrence of accident instantaneously perplexed the appellant and the driver of motorbike, and due to trauma of fatal injuries, he fainted on the spot. The appellant was immediately taken to Primary Health Centre, Anadara and provided primary medical aid. But looking to the gravity and magnitude of the injuries, viz. compound fractures of Tibia & Fibula of left leg, smashing both the bones and bone of the foot, he was referred to an orthopedic hospital and thereupon he was shifted to Sagar Orthopedic Hospital, Palanpur on the same day. At the Palanpur hospital, after radiological investigation, a major operation of the appellant was performed by implanting rod in his body with requisite wiring and screwing. The appellant remained under convalescence as indoor patient of the said hospital up to 20th of January 2010 and in the interregnum period twice blood was transfused. Soon after the operation and discharge from hospital, the appellant remained bed-ridden for almost three months and thereafter from 1st April 2010 to 30th April 2010, he undertook exercise as advised by the physiotherapist. Appellant has also asserted in the claim petition that he is under constant vigil of the expert doctors and visiting hospital periodically for his checkup and treatment is still going on. As per version of the appellant, he is still required to undergo surgery. While adverting to the quantum of compensation, the appellant has stated in the claim petition that at the time of accident, he was employed as a Salesman at Mumbai earning Rs.8,000/- per month and due to this accident his entire efficiency has impaired and now he is unable to perform his duties as a Salesman. The injuries suffered by the appellant have rendered him permanent disable and the mental agony suffered by him during his convalescence and sufferance of pain has made his life miserable. Till date, as per the appellant, he is unable to walk without support. With all these averments, the appellant has quantified the compensation to the tune of Rs.9,20,000/- under various heads.

(3.) After issuance of notices by the learned Tribunal, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 & 2 and therefore the learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against them. The respondent insurer while responding to the notice appeared before the learned Tribunal and contested the claim. In the return, the third respondent very candidly admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it but while joining issue with the appellant, it has pleaded that cause of accident was rash and negligent driving of motorbike. The third respondent Insurance Company categorically averred in the reply that truck was driven by its driver cautiously and therefore no negligence can be attributed to its driver for the occurrence of the accident. Alleging collusion between the owner of the truck and the Police, the insurance company has put forth its defence that the truck driver has been unnecessarily held responsible for the accident. A specific plea regarding validity of licence of truck driver was also incorporated in the return besides valid permit and fitness certificate of the vehicle for plying the same. Taking a dig at the alleged violation of the terms of the insurance policy, the insurance company has pleaded that liability of compensation cannot be fastened on it.