Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 460 (MP)

Vesta v. Tara Chand

2012-04-30

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2012
ORDER 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 has been filed by the claimant challenging the award dated 9.3.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kukshi, District Dhar in Claim Case No.112/05. The respondent no.3-Insurance Company has filed the cross objection in the matter disputing the liability of the insurance company. 2. The appellant who was the pillion rider on the motorcycle No. M.P.11 BC/6681 driven by the respondent no.1, had suffered injuries in the accident which had taken place on 4.4.2005. The motorcycle was insured with the respondent no.3-Insurance Company. A claim petition was filed by the appellant before the Tribunal claiming compensation from owner and driver of the motorcycle as well as the respondent no.3-Insurance company, with which the motorcycle was insured. 3. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record had found that the accident was caused by the motorcycle No.M.P.11 BC/6681. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company pressing the cross objection submitted that the accident was not caused on account of any fault on the part of the motorcycle driver, and the said accident was caused by an unknown truck, therefore, it was a case of hit and run where insurance company is not liable. Such an objection of the insurance company cannot be accepted. The FIR (Ex.P/1) indicates that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle. The Tribunal has taken into account relevant evidence on record and has rightly found that the accident was caused by the motorcycle. Such a finding of fact needs no interference. Even otherwise the cross objection has not been filed within time. Accordingly the cross objection is rejected. 5. The appellant has claimed enhancement of the compensation amount on the ground that the amount which has been awarded to the appellant is on the lower side, though the appellant had suffered the permanent disability in the left hand to the extent of 19%. The evidence on record specially the evidence of A.W.2 Dr. B.L. Khangar indicates that in the accident the appellant had suffered 19% permanent disability in the left hand. The tribunal has recorded a finding in this regard in favour of the appellant. The appellant is a labourer, therefore, the permanent disability will affect his work. The evidence on record specially the evidence of A.W.2 Dr. B.L. Khangar indicates that in the accident the appellant had suffered 19% permanent disability in the left hand. The tribunal has recorded a finding in this regard in favour of the appellant. The appellant is a labourer, therefore, the permanent disability will affect his work. The record indicates that the appellant is only 19 years of age and he will have to suffer the disability throughout his life. 6. Considering the age of the appellant, nature of the permanent disability and the nature of his work, it is found that the appellant is entitled to a further sum of Rs.35,000/- under the head of permanent disability. It is also noticed that the appellant has not been awarded adequate amount under the head of loss of earning, special diet, attendant charges, conveyance etc. during the treatment period, therefore, the appellant is found to be entitled to a further sum of Rs.10,000/- in these heads. 7. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs.45,000/- which is payable to the appellant in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount will bear interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of claim petition till its realization. The 50% of the amount enhanced by this Court be kept in the FDR. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.