NIRMAL KUMAR Vs. DEVI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated April 22, 1982, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in case No. 104/72, by which an award for payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 21,890/ - with costs and interest with effect from January 21, 1978 till realisation at rate of 6 per cent per annum was passed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that in an accident, which took place on 29th July, 1977 the claimant sustained bodily injuries arising out of the use of motor vehicle Bus No. RJQ 889 driven by respondent No. I. Devilal. The owner of the bus is respondent No. 2. In the appeal the petitioner -appellant has claimed that instead of the award given by the Claims Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 21,890/ - his entire claim to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs should be decreed. The respondents neither filed any appeal against the award dated April 22, 1982 nor filed any cross -objections. In the circumstances, the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal that the accident was caused by respondent No 1 by driving the bus rashly and negligently stands confirmed. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is very poor and it is the fit case in which looking to the extensive injuries caused to the appellant, he is entitled to seek modification of the award. On account of the accident, the appellant received bodily injuries, which are as follows:

(3.) THE accident resulted in fracture in the leg, which was fixed by putting Malls in the broken bones. The accident also resulted in causing injury in the brain as a result of which there was bleeding from out of the ear. Due to the bodily injuries, the appellant became unconscious on the spot and he recovered consciousness after about six hours. The appellant remained in the hospital as a in -door -patient from 27th July, 1977 to 24th August, 1977 and even after discharge from the hospital, his treatment continued for a considerable length of time. It is submitted by Shri B.L. Maheshwari that at the time of accident, the appellant was a student of B. Com. final. On account of the accident he could not carry his further studies after B. Com. He has also submitted that as per the opinion of Doctor Pramod Bhardwaj. PW 1, the petitioner -appellant became patient of post traumatic personality disorder, which was the effect of injuries to the brain. Doctor Pramod Bhardwaj, who examined as P.W I, has also deposed that it is likely that the petitioner may not recover fully well. There may remain some fault in the memory. The petitioner himself has deposed that the nail, which was engrafted in the bone, still remains there. He has also deposed that he could not continue his studies after B. Com., as he is not capable of putting concentration on his work. He bad keen desire to go for further studies, but unwillingly had to resolve to business. The learned Counsel for the petitioner -appellant on the basis of aforesaid facts and circumstances submits that the claim awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on a very low side' He submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled to full amount. Mr. N.P. Gupta defending the respondents submits that the award is quite fair and just and there are no special circumstances for any interference in the amount of award passed by the Claims Tribunal.