MUKESH KUMAR Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the impugned award dated 13.3.2008 passed by the MACT & Addl. District Judge, Kekri in claim case No.37/2007, whereby the Tribunal has partially allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and granted an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- as lump sum compensation.

(2.) The brief facts as emerging on the face of record are that a claim petition came to be filed by the claimant before the Tribunal under Section 166/140 of the M.V. Act stating therein that on 16.7.2006 at about 6 O' Clock in the morning when claimant was going to Ajmer Hospital in Maruti Van then near Hostel, Ajmer Road, Kekri the driver of Maruti Van caused accident when the car dashed with an electricity Pole on account of his rash and negligent driving due to which he sustained grievous injuries. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the non-petitioner No.1. The report of the accident was lodged at Police Station, Kekri upon which FIR bearing No.210/2006 was chalked and after investigation challan was filed in the concerned court against non-petitioner No.1 for offence under Sections 279,337,338 IPC. The learned Tribunal after elaborate discussion has granted compensation to the extent of Rs.1,70,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. in favour of the claimant.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim has not been correctly allowed in as much as the appellant was admitted in Ramsnehi Hospital for about 15 days and thereafter in Sarthak Orthopedic Hospital, Ahmedabad for about 4 days and he had been operated also on account of various fractures and nail was also put and there is disability to the extent of 39% and over all disability of 24%. He contended that the claim allowed is disproportionate as out of Rs.1,70,000/- Rs.80,000/- was allowed on account of actual medical bills and expenses and, therefore, the balance amount of Rs.90,000/- is disproportionate, which has been allowed at a lower figure without considering the appellant's age who at the relevant time was 30 years and was earning Rs.6000/- per month, but the amount granted to the claimant is quite low.