LAWS(RAJ)-2005-1-85

MOTILAL Vs. SANGEET AGARWAL

Decided On January 11, 2005
MOTILAL Appellant
V/S
Sangeet Agarwal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the award dated 3.6.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in M.A.C.T. Claim Case No. 632/1988 which was filed for compensation on account of injuries suffered by the appellant who met with a motor accident on 27.4.1988. On the fateful day, the appellant was going on a scooter when he met with an accident involving a truck No. RRB -9144 which was being driven by the respondent No. 2. The said vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The said truck was carrying iron for steel which was projecting outside the truck and as a result of the collision, some of the steel penetrated in the chest of the appellant as well as in the arm resulting in multiple fractures.

(2.) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that compensation on account of injuries of Rs. 20,000/ - awarded to the appellant is wholy inadequate and the amount of Rs. 3,282/ - plus Rs. 718/ - awarded for loss of income and medical expenses respectively amounting to Rs. 4,000/ - is also inadequate.

(3.) I have given anxious consideration to the fact and circumstances of the case, it has been brought on the record that appellant suffered multiple injuries i.e., fractures of the ribs as well as the injuries on the arms which were caused by the penetration by the steel bars. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, the appellant was hospitalised for a period of one month and could not attend his duties for a period of nearly two months. P.W. 3. Dr. Gautam Sain has proved the injuries as well as stated that as a result of the aforesaid injuries, the appellant would have difficulty in breathing as well as would face difficulty in doing heavy work and would have limited capacity to do work. He will also have to face problem in sleeping on the right side and even during the change of seasons he would face problem. It has also come on record that appellant suffered a penetrating incised wound on the chest. This treatment continued even on 24.6.1988 as the said wound on chest developed infection as is evident from Exhibit P -5 and the treatment ticket dated 24.6.1988 which is on record i.e., after nearly two months of the accident.