BHARAT LAL AGRAWAL Vs. SHANTA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.7.1991 passed by 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner. Ranchi-cum-Motor Vehicles Act Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 36 of 1989 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 20,500/- with interest @ 12 per annum from the date of filing of claim application.

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 14.12.1988 the applicant was going on a scooter from Ashok Nagar to Doranda and in the way near Band More a car bearing registration No. BHV 6055 coming rashly and negligently from A.G. More side and dashed the scooter of the applicant causing a serious multiple injuries. Doranda PS Case No. 544 of 1988 was registered against the driver of the said car. The applicant suffered mental agony and remained under complete bed rest as well as huge amount over the treatment was spended. Even after discharge from the hospital, he remained bed rest. The applicant, who was under plaster, had to lace a lot of problem. On account of multiple grievous injury sustained by the applicant there was a permanent chance of disability and limping and the applicant filed the compensation case but the learned court below allowed the award amounting to Rs. 20,500/- instead of 2,00,000/-, witnesses were examined in the court below. Some of the documents including the prosecution report were also filed. After having heard both sides, the court below passed the judgment impugned against which this appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment as the learned court below, after considering the evidence on record, awarded just and proper compensation. It is also submitted that there is no document to show that the appellant was suffering from permanent disablement and the medical certificate produced by the appellant is procured papers for the purpose of compensation as no any doctor said to have treated has been examined to substantiate the claim.