SYED AHMAD Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ['the Act of 1988'] challenging the validity of the judgment/award dtd. 3/5/2016 passed by the learned Judge, MACT No.1, Udaipur ['learned Tribunal'] in MAC Case No.63/2014 (Syed Ahmad Vs. Suresh and Ors.) whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of the appellant and awarded Rs.5,000.00 as an amount of compensation with interest @ 9% per annum while holding respondents No.2 liable.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that The present appeal arises out of a motor accident that occurred on 24/11/2012, resulting in injuries to the appellant. The appellant, following the accident, sustained both simple and grievous injuries, including a crushed wound on the scalp. The appellant filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000.00 to the appellant as compensation on 3/5/2016. The appellant, aggrieved by the award, has now approached this Hon'ble Court seeking enhancement, primarily relying on a permanent disability certificate (Exhibit-23) which records a 4% permanent disability

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that this amount is grossly inadequate, particularly in view of the permanent disability certificate (Exhibit-23) which assesses the appellant's disability at 4%. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant sustained multiple injuries, including a crushed wound on the scalp, which required treatment and has left lasting effects on his daily activities. He submits that a permanent disability certificate (Exhibit-23), issued by a competent medical board, records that the appellant has sustained a 4% permanent disability. The appellant submits that the Tribunal has unjustly disregarded this certificate without assigning cogent reasons for doing so. The counsel for the appellant further asserts that due to the injury, he is facing difficulty in walking and performing other physical activities. The disability, though recorded as 4%, has allegedly affected his ability to lead a normal life, and hence, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal does not reflect the actual hardship faced by appellant.