DINESH Vs. KANHAIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Anil Lala, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant, a young man in his meets twenties, questioning the correctness of the award, submits that when the statue, namely Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') postulate the concept of grant of just compensation, it was not appropriate on the part of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khandwa (in short 'the Tribunal') to pass an award for a sum of Rs. 91,700.00 in Claim Case No. 27/2004 after categorically coming to the conclusion that the insured has suffered 60% permanent disability because of amputation of the right palm.

(2.) WE need not state the facts in detail inasmuch as there is no disputation that the insured sustained the aforesaid injury being hit by the tractor bearing registration No. MP-12-D/1738 being rashly and negligently driven by the driver of the offending vehicle and further that the treatment for more than a month was given and eventually the palm had to be severed. Mr. Lala, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the severance of limb has entailed in the lament of the injured but as it seems, the Tribunal has failed to take note of the factum pertaining to the loss caused, the effect ensued relating to quality of life, the handicap faced by the insured, the amount spent on medical treatment, the mental pain and suffering of the injured and other concomitant factors and has granted compensation for a meager sum.

(3.) ON a careful perusal of the award, it is evident that finding has been recorded that the claimant had spent more than Rs. 3,000/- on medical expenses. Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded towards the future treatment. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- has been granted towards pain and suffering, Rs. 7,600/- for loss of income. Thus, in toto, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 91,700/- to the claimant-appellant.