Prem Prakash Mathur vs Mohan and Others

G.S. Sarraf, J.—These two appeals have been filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment/award dated 28.2.1995 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

Briefly stated the facts are that on 4.8.1990 at about 11.00 a.m. the appellants Prem Prakash Mathur and his wife Smt. Kanti Mathur were going from Bapu Nagar to SMS Hospital, Jaipur by Scooter No. RSR-1623. The appellant Prem Prakash Mathur was driving the scooter whereas the appellant Smt. Kanti Mathur was a pillion rider. When the appellant Prem Prakash Mathur stopped the scooter at the traffic signal of Ram Bagh Circle a Tempo No. RSM-1425 came from behind and hit the scooter in consequence of which the two appellants Prem Prakash Mathur and Mrs. Kanti Mathur sustained injuries. According to the claim petition the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tempo by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the owner and respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company of the Tempo No. RSM-1425. After hearing the parties the learned Tribunal by a common judgment dated 28.2.1995 passed an award of Rs. 10,000 in favour of the appellant Prem Prakash Mathur (Motor Accident Claim No. 545/1991) and of Rs. 5,000 in favour of the appellant Smt. Kanti Mathur (Motor Accident Claim No. 546/1991). Aggrieved by the judgment/award the claimant-appellants have filed these two appeals.

Mr. Sandeep Mathur, learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that in appeal No. 671/1995 the learned Tribunal has wrongly declined to consider the permanent disability certificate Exhibit-16 on the ground of non-examination of the doctor issuing the certificate because no such examination is necessary and the certificate Exhibit-16 itself proves that the appellant Prem Prakash Mathur suffered permanent disability in left lower limb to the extent of 18.80%. He has placed reliance on Priti Vs. Chairman, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another, He has further submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in the two cases is grossly inadequte and, therefore, it should be reasonably increased.

Mrs. Manju Jain, Counsel for respondent No. 3 in both the cases has supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal.

As regards appeal No. 667/1995, the learned Tribunal has generously awarded Rs. 5,000 for three simple injuries suffered by the appellant Mrs. Kanti Mathur and as such there is absolutely no ground for interference.

As regards Appeal No. 671/1995 certain very interesting aspects of the matter deserve to be noted. The accident has occurred on 4.8.1990 whereas the first information report has been lodged after more than a month i.e., on 6.9.1990. Injury-report Exhibit-2 and x-ray report Exhibit-3 have also been prepared on 6.9.1990. The appellant Prem Prakash Mathur is not an illiterate villager but he is a resident of Bapu Nagar, Jaipur and was serving in Mobile Surgical Unit at the relevant time. According to the Exhibits 4 and 6 the appellant Prem Prakash Mathur was admitted in hospital on 9.8.1990 and, thereafter he was discharged on 18.8.1990. It is not clear why the appellant Prem Prakash Mathur was not x-rayed between 9.8.1990 and 18.8.1990, when he remained admitted in hospital and why the injury report was prepared so late. There is nothing on record to explain the long delay in lodging the first information report also. The appellant Prem Prakash Mathur filed claim petition in the Tribunal on 16.11.1990 but he did not mention therein whether he suffered any sort of disability. The permanent disability certificate has been prepared after a little less than four years from the accident i.e., on 22.6.1994. Looking to the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of this case the learned Tribunal does not appear to have committed any error by not considering the permanent disability certificate without subjecting the doctor who issued the certificate to cross-examination. In view of this discussion I am of the opinion that there is no case for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded to the appellant Prem Prakash Mathur.

It is thus clear that there in no merit is these two appeals.

Consequently, the two appeals fail which are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.