NAYNESH H NANAVATI Vs. DASHRATH R BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Surat in M.A.C.P. No. 426/1980. He has been awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- together with running interest at the rate of 6% p a from the date of the application till realization and proportionate costs. The Tribunal has, however, held that in the instant case respondent no. 3 i.e., Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd., was not liable to pay compensation to the appellant but respondents nos. 1 and 2, namely driver and owner of the offending vehicle were saddled with the liability to satisfy the award. The judgment and award are dated 28/2/1983.

(2.) The appellant, at the relevant time, was working with C K Pithawala, contractor of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers. He received monthly salary of Rs.300/-. On 16/6/1980 he was required to go to Surat. However, the condition of the car of the company in which he was supposed to travel, was not roadworthy and, therefore, he hired the car of respondent no. 2 by paying Rs.175/-. Thereafter, the applicant, the Resident Engineer of the company one Mr. Chaudhary and one Mr. Mohanbhai Patel and the driver started at about 8.00 a m on 16/6/1980. Respondent no. 1 was driving the car. They reached Surat and after finishing work at Surat they started to return to Bharuch. It was around 11.45 p.m. It is the say of the appellant that respondent no. 1 drove the car with excessive speed and despite repeated warnings, he did not slow it down. When the car was about to approach the Kim cross roads, on the curve, it dashed with one stationary truck. As a result of the same, the appellant received serious injuries on face. His two teeth were uprooted and one was broken. He had also received other injuries on the face. He was immediately removed to Bharuch hospital and kept as indoor patient for about 14 days. Thereafter he was taken to Jaslok Hospital at Bombay for further treatment and plastic surgery. He was thrice operated upon and thereafter he was advised regular follow up treatment once in a month. It is averred in the application by the appellant that even after he was discharged from the hospital, he had to take physiotherapy treatment at SSG Hospital, Vadodara. According to him, because of the injuries received on his face, there was disfiguration of the face and the permanent disability was caused. He, therefore, approached the Claims Tribunal to obtain compensation. Before the Tribunal he initially claimed Rs.52,000/- but subsequently claim was raised to Rs.99,999/-.

(3.) I have heard Ms. Maya Desai, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, Mr. Ankur Y Oza, learned advocate appearing for Mr. TS Nanavati for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Mr. Uday Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 3. The record and proceedings of the case are kept present. It is the submission of Ms. Desai that the award of the Tribunal is very conservative and it is required to be modified. According to her, the compensation awarded to the appellant is hopelessly inadequate and it is required to be enhanced substantially. She has submitted that considering the nature of the injuries and also the medical treatment, which the appellant was required to undergo, the appellant deserved the grant of entire claim, but the Tribunal has grievously erred in curtailing it considerably. She has taken me through the evidence of the appellant as well as Dr. Buch.