HARMINDER SINGH Vs. GOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the common award dated 21.8.1990 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 499 of 1986 filed by the appellant Harminder Singh for the compensation in respect to the injuries suffered by him and Claim Case No. 500 of 1986 was filed by the appellant Balveer Singh for compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in an accident which took place on 12.11.1985 while travelling in car bearing registration No. MXY 1932 from Jaipur to Delhi on Jaipur-Delhi Highway nearabout Shahpura. When the said car met with an accident with a tanker (truck) bearing registration No. RNM 2995 which was alleged to have been driven rashly and negligently by Gopal Singh, respondent No. 1, as a result of the aforesaid injuries, appellants submitted the aforesaid two separate claim petitions before Tribunal.

(2.) Appeal No. 304 of 1991 has been filed by appellant Harminder Singh for the enhancement of the amount of compensation for the injuries suffered by him.

(3.) The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that in spite of the fact that appellant suffered multiple grievous injuries and though there was evidence on record in the form of Exh. P11 and the certificate Exh. P12 and also the statement of Dr. R. Choudhary, AW 4, the Tribunal ignored the same and awarded the amount of compensation in an arbitrary manner in lump sum, i.e., Rs. 50,000 for the injuries and the disability was not taken into consideration in true perspective. It is this amount of Rs. 50,000 which the learned counsel wants to be enhanced keeping in view the guiding principle as laid down in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even though the accident had occurred in the year 1985 but as per the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, since their Lordships of the Apex Court in the case of Arati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India, 2003 ACJ 680 (SC), wherein in para 11 their Lordships have held that the provisions contained in Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have proved to be a guidelines so far as the cases covered under the said Schedule are concerned and accordingly this case may also be dealt with under the provisions of the Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 may be taken into consideration in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents