- (1.) Heard Sri A.C. Nigam, learned Counsel for the appellant, which is the Insurance Company. Although the cause list has been revised none appears on behalf of the claimant-respondents. This is a First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 30th November, 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Banda, in M.A.C.T. Case No. 169/70 of 2000 (Ram Naresh alias Naresh v. Rama Kant Sahu & others) whereby the appellant-Insurance Company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. . 55,000/- as compensation and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of presentation of claim till the date of payment. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has firstly assailed the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 with regard to factum of the accident and submits that in the F.I.R. lodged the number of the vehicle was given as MP-19/2233, whereas the vehicle in question is numbered as MP-28B/2233 and as such the accident had not occurred with the vehicle insured by the appellant, more particularly in view of the statement given by the driver of the vehicle namely Gulab Chand, who was produced as D.W.-1 to the effect that no accident had occurred with the Jeep in question.
(2.) Having considered the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record, a finding has been recorded on the basis of statement on oath of eye-witness that the Jeep No. MP-28B/2233 hit the claimant-respondent's Bicycle and ran away from there. It has also been recorded that upon investigation the Investigating Officer in pursuance of the F.I.R. found that the Jeep in question was numbered as MP-28B/2233 and, therefore, when the charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the vehicle namely Gulab Chand, the charge-sheet was with respect to the Jeep No. MP-28B/2233. The submission of learned Counsel that the F.I.R. version should be believed over the charge-sheet, does not appear very sound since it has been recorded in the impugned order that a wrong number was given by the brother of the injured, who was travelling on the bicycle alongwith the injured. Since, the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the Jeep No. MP-28B/2233 it cannot be held that the said Jeep was not involved in the accident. Insofar as the statement of driver is concerned, he has denied the factum of the accident but admits to be driving the Jeep No. MP-28B/2233 on that day. The same is faced with the eye-witness statement of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, who were eye-witnesses to the accident and were also injured therein. Consequently, the first submission of learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted in the absence of any evidence available on record and, therefore, findings recorded under the impugned order on Issue No. 1 is based on evidence and requires no further interference.
(3.) Learned Counsel has also assailed the findings on Issue No. 3 with respect to grant of amount of compensation to the injured. From the findings recorded therein it appears that the injured had suffered fracture in the right hand and in the right leg and he went through treatment in the hospital after X-ray was done. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. . 25,000/- compensation for hospitalization and medicines, Rs. . 25,000/- compensation for fracture in his right hand and in the right leg, Rs. . 10,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. . 5,000/- for diet. It will be seen that the claimant-respondent had suffered two fractures; one in his right hand and other in his right leg and he was kept in the hospital and treated for the same. Definitely, the fracture in the right leg and in the right hand has caused mental agony to the claimant-respondent and he was handicapped for the period the said fractures confined his mobility. Consequently, the compensation of Rs. . 25,000/- spent upon hospitalization, medicine and plaster by the claimant-respondent for two fractures in his right hand and in right leg cannot be said to be excessive in any manner whatsoever. The other compensation of Rs. . 25,000/- for the loss which he has suffered due to incapacity of being able to work due to the aforesaid two fractures has also been assessed at Rs. . 25,000/-. When the right hand and the right leg of a person is fractured and it is plastered, he is definitely unable to perform his work for the purpose of livelihood and is confined at least for the period of six weeks and therefore, the compensation of Rs. . 25,000/- for the said purpose also cannot be said to be excessive. The compensation of Rs. . 10,000/- for mental harassment has been awarded at the minimum rate and Rs. . 5,000/- has been awarded for diet during the period of confinement and incapacity. Even these amounts cannot be held to be excessive in any manner whatsoever.;