HAKKU ALIAS HAKAM Vs. AASH MOHAMMAD AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal brought by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. Hakku alias Hakam, the claimant suffered injuries in a road side accident that took place on 25.11.2008. He had brought the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the injuries he suffered in the aforesaid accident. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nuh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 25.03.2011 allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs. 1,48,000/-.

(2.) The claimant had been selling milk before the accident. He was earning Rs. 8000/- per month. He claimed that on account of the accident, he has become permanently disabled and he is not able to earn anything. Hence, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- is claimed as compensation. The respondents have resisted the claim petition. They have denied the claimant to have suffered any injuries, to have taken any treatment, or to have spent any amount in the same. He is denied to have suffered any disability. They have denied the claimant to deserve a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. The claim petition is, therefore, prayed to be dismissed.

(3.) It is a case where the disability suffered by the claimant is proved to be 25% by way of disability certificate Ex.P-15. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been assessed as compensation for the disability. The claimant has brought on record various bills prepared during his treatment. They were in a sum of Rs. 81,000/- and this amount is allowed in the name of medical expenses. Taking into account the fact that the claimant would suffer on account of the disability in his future life, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been assessed as compensation. Thus, a sum of Rs. 1,48,000/- has been assessed as compensation in favour of the claimant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has not taken care of the expenses which are generally incurred in such like cases in the beginning without obtaining bills. According to him, no penny was, thus, allowed in the name of expenses incurred in the treatment of the injured without obtaining bills. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has not allowed a penny for pain and suffering, loss of income during treatment, expenses on special diet, expenses on attendant and transportation. According to him, the award , thus, granted compensation under a few heads and ignored most of the other heads under which compensation could be granted.