Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1659 (ALL)

SACHIN v. ROHIT MILK ENTERPRISES

2012-07-25

A.K.SHARMA, RAKESH TIWARI

body2012
Anil Kumar Sharma, J. The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 17 days. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application in filing the FAFO. The grounds are sufficient. The delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the FAFO is condoned. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 4.4.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Ghaziabad in MACP No.94 of 2010, Sachin versus Rohit Milk Enterprises and another whereby compensation of Rs. 78,824/- has been awarded to the claimant-appellant on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 3. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has awarded very meager amount of compensation; that his permanent and partial disability to the extent of 20% was not considered by the learned Tribunal; and in any event the appellant is liable to get compensation of Rs. 7,35,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 4. It appears that in an accident dated 20.9.2009 the appellant sustained injuries when he was going along with deceased Satvir on motor cycle no.U.P. 12-E 188 as pillion rider, the driver of Tata 709 registration no. DL-I-LK-1678 hit the motor cycle from behind. It was alleged that the appellant sustained injuries on his shoulder,mandible and other parts of the body. Satvir died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. The claimant in an injured condition was hospitalized in Jeevan Hospital, Modinagar and thereafter he was medically treated in Anand Hospital, Meerut from 21.9.2009 to 25.9.2009 and in the medical treatment Rs.60,000/- were spent. He claims that in the accident his mandible was fractured and he also sustained injuries on his head. The report of the accident was lodged on 22.9.2009 in police station Hafizpur, District Ghaziabad. 5. The owner and insurer of Tata 709 registration no. DL-I-LK-1678 denied the rash driving of their vehicle by its driver and alleged sole negligence of motor cyclist in the accident. 6. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and filed several papers before the Tribunal. Respondent no.2 examined its Manager, Sri Naresh Kumar, D.W.1 and the opposite parties filed several documents. 7. DL-I-LK-1678 denied the rash driving of their vehicle by its driver and alleged sole negligence of motor cyclist in the accident. 6. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and filed several papers before the Tribunal. Respondent no.2 examined its Manager, Sri Naresh Kumar, D.W.1 and the opposite parties filed several documents. 7. On consideration of evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties the learned Tribunal found that the claimant sustained injuries in the instant accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata 709 registration no. DL-I-LK-1678 by its driver. It was further found that the aforesaid vehicle was not insured because the cheque regarding payment of premium had bounced and the policy was cancelled by the Insurance Company. 8. The learned Tribunal disbelieved the disability certificate filed by the claimant as it was not issued by the competent authority. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.78.824/- compensation to the claimant together with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 9. Aggrieved the claimant has come up in appeal before this Court. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant could not assail the finding of the Tribunal with regard to rejection of disability certificate of the appellant filed before the Tribunal as it was not issued by the panel constituted under the chairmanship of the Chief Medical Officer. The claimant in his affidavit has stated before the Tribunal that in his treatment Rs.60,000/- were spent. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.78,824/- as compensation to the claimant. The appellant has not filed copy of the claim petition which could have enabled us to ascertain as to under which head what amount of compensation has been claimed by him. The appellant has suffered fracture only in his mandible and he has not pleaded that after treatment he is unable to eat or speak. It is trite law that compensation in motor accident claim cases should not be bonanza for the claimants or source of profit nor it should be a pitfall on them. It should be just and fair. The endeavour of the Tribunal should be to place the claimants in pre-accident position. There is always a guess work to calculate just and fair compensation and there is no straight jacket formula for this purpose. 12. It should be just and fair. The endeavour of the Tribunal should be to place the claimants in pre-accident position. There is always a guess work to calculate just and fair compensation and there is no straight jacket formula for this purpose. 12. In our considered view, the learned Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimant and resultantly the appeal fails for the aforesaid reasons. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.