Balbir Sharma vs Yogendra Singh

Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Tribunal") with a prayer to enhance the same, the claimant-appellant has filed this Civil Misc. Appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the judgment and award dated 26.10.1999 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Case No. 892/1998.

The appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident and for award of compensation a claim petition was filed by him u/s 166 of the Act before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has awarded a total amount of Rs. 78,000/- to the appellant as compensation.

The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal on 3.11.1998 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,05,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him with the averment that when he was going from Jodhpur to Jaisalmer in a Jeep bearing Registration No. RJ-14-T-1921, the driver of the jeep was driving the jeep negligently and rashly and as a result of which it dashed with another jeep coming from the opposite side and in the said accident the appellant sustained several simple and grievous injuries. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues and the question of quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimant-appellant was considered under Issue No. 4 and after taking into consideration the disability caused to the appellant, injuries sustained by him, his income at the time of the said accident and also looking to the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal awarded the aforesaid amount under various heads. It was specifically found by the learned Tribunal that as a result of the injuries sustained by the appellant there is no loss of future income, as the appellant is still working in the same position in which he was working before the accident occurred.

Assailing the findings of the learned Tribunal on the question of quantum to be awarded to the appellant, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that only a meager amount of Rs. 78,000/- has been awarded whereas looking to the permanent disability caused to the appellant an amount of Rs. 50,000/- should have been granted under the head of future treatment, but no such amount has been awarded. It was further submitted that learned Tribunal has also ignored the fact that the appellant incurred a huge amount for necessary nutritious diet during treatment and would also incur more expenses under the same head in future also, but this aspect of the matter has also not been properly considered by the learned Tribunal. It was prayed on behalf of the appellant that the amount of compensation may suitably be enhanced.

If the submissions made on behalf of the appellant are considered in the light of reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal in support of its findings under Issue No. 4, the same are not legally sustainable. On the basis of pleadings of the appellant himself, the learned Tribunal found the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 5,000/- although during trial a certificate of monthly income @ Rs. 7500/- was produced. On the basis of admission made by the appellant himself in his cross-examination to the effect that he is still continuing in the same job, which he was pursuing before the said accident, it was found by the learned Tribunal that no loss can be said to have been caused in the future income of the appellant and as a result of the injuries sustained by him Rs. 40,000/- were awarded. Similarly, under the head of expenses incurred for purchasing medicines and under the head of nourishment and transportation a total sum of Rs. 28,000/- has been awarded. In absence of any proof for duration of treatment in hospital and absence from his duties, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that at the most it can be said that the appellant remained absent from his job for a period of two months and under that head Rs. 10,000/- were awarded taking his monthly income as Rs. 5,000/-.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal by any measure is unreasonable and insufficient. The learned counsel for the appellant with all his efforts failed to convince this Court that the appellant is entitled to obtain further amount as compensation under any of the heads, which are relevant in such cases.

Consequently, by maintaining and affirming the judgment and award dated 26.10.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Claim Case No. 892/1998, the appeal being meritless is, hereby, dismissed.