Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1375 (ALL)

Vineet Kumar Srivastava v. Satya Veer Singh

2013-05-09

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Rakesh Tiwari

body2013
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. The claimant appellant has challenged award dated 21.8.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,Court No.13, in MACP No.919 of 2002, Vineet Kumar Srivastava Vs. Satya Veer Singh and another, by which compensation of Rs.41,5,000/- has been awarded to the claimants, on account of grievous injury received the the appellant. The appellant has sought relief of modification of award aforesaid and for enhancement of awarded amount of compensation along with 12% interest from the date of filing of the application till date of its realization. According to the appellant the Tribunal has wrongly awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards treatment which is very low against Rs. one lakh actually spent by him in treatment of the injured caused in the motor accident. It appears from the record that the appellant-claimant in a motor accident sustained gravious injury when he was student of Class IX in the year 2002-03. His Femur and Patella bone of left leg were fractured. Surgery plates and blots were inserted on his leg, as a result of which he is unable to fold and move his left leg from the knee and has in fact become permanently disabled. It is stated that due to injuries he was unable to attend his academic Session 2002-2003 and he completed his 9th standard in academic session 2003-2004 and as such he became one year behind his colleagues, As a result of the injuries he has also to pay extra conveyance charges which the appellant in going to his college and would spend in future to his work place. The Tribunal has also not considered the inconvenience, discomfort, hardship, frustration, disappointment and mental stress in the life of the appellant, as such the compensation awarded by the Tribunal neither fair nor justified or reasonable. We have perused the award. The Tribunal has considered the question of quantum of compensation on issue no.4. Relying upon the judgment rendered 2005, T.A.C. ( page-4) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Challa Bharathamma, the Tribunal fixed the liability to pay compensation upon the tempo owner as the tempo driver employed by him did not have a valid route permit. The Claimant-appellant has relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention:- 1. Relying upon the judgment rendered 2005, T.A.C. ( page-4) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Challa Bharathamma, the Tribunal fixed the liability to pay compensation upon the tempo owner as the tempo driver employed by him did not have a valid route permit. The Claimant-appellant has relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention:- 1. 2002 ( 2) TAC page 75, Nantional Insurance Company Limited Vs Mukesh and others ( H.C. Rajsthan) 2. 1998 ACJ page 920 Swatantra Kumar Vs. Kamar Ali and others ( S.C) 3. 1997 ( 2) S.C.C. page 446 Shashendra Lahari Vs. Shubi Sef and others ( SC) 4. 1990 ( 1) TAC page 672 Rajsthan Stare Road Transport Corporation Vs. Devi Lal and others ( H.C. Rajsthan) It is stated that all the aforesaid cases, in the court considered question of compensation viz a viz permanent disability suffered by the injured while awarding the compensation. However, as no disability certificate was filed by the appellant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, did not allowed any compensation under this head to the claimant and applying the second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 a sum of Rs. 36,480/- towards medical bills of treatment submitted by the appellant and Rs.5,000/- towards serious injuries i.e. Rs. 41,500/- in round figure along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim application dated 23.12.2002 till date of payment, was allowed. Admittedly, the appellant had not filed his disability certificate and the Tribunal has allowed the compensation in accordance with Act and the Rules. Therefore, There is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and the award on the basis of second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act is liable to be upheld. The appeal is sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.