Prakash Krishna - (1.) -This First Appeal From Order No. 360 of 1983 is connected with Writ Petition No. 7457 of 1983. The above appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 2.9.1982, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C. No. 37 of 1978. The Tribunal by the award under appeal has ex parte awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the claimant respondent. It appears that Dr. P. Awasthi, the claimant respondent, who was working as medical practitioner, an eye surgeon and specialist and was employed in S. N. Medical College, while travelling in his Fiat Car No. U.T.R.-3840 returning from his farm met with an accident. He filed a claim petition giving rise to the present appeal against the present appellant on the allegation that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Bus No. U.P.U.-8063 which belongs to the appellant. He claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs. 4,000 per month and has spent a huge amount in medicine in the treatment of injuries suffered by him. In all he claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for loss, nervous shock, injuries and expenses including damage to the case. The present appellant failed to appear or contest the proceedings. The proceedings went on ex parte. Shri P. Awasthi examined himself as P.W. 1. On the testimony of Shri P. Awasthi the Tribunal has passed the impugned award.
(2.) AN application to recall the ex parte award was filed which was dismissed by the Tribunal against which the Writ Petition No. 7457 of 1983 has been filed. Both the cases were consolidated and are being heard together. List has been revised. None is present on behalf of respondents. Shri Sameer Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 50,000 without recording any finding about negligence of the bus driver. The claimant respondent has not filed any documentary evidence in support of his claim towards the medical expenses etc. He submits that the Tribunal could not have awarded the amount of compensation in absence of any documentary evidence. The further submission is that an application to recall the said order was filed. It was rejected by the Tribunal on a highly technical ground that the vakalatnama of earlier counsel was not got cancelled. The earlier counsel had knowledge of the proceeding and affidavit of Shri P. Awasthi remained uncontroverted.
(3.) CONSIDERED submission of learned counsel for the appellant. A bare perusal of the judgment of court below shows that it has passed the award without discussing the evidence or any material. The relevant portion from the judgment is reproduced below : "This keeping in view the principles which govern granting of compensation and in view of the fact that petitioner is a man of status, he suffered loss, he remained confined to bed; he sustained grievous injuries and he had to undergo heavy ordeal of physical and mental pain. I feel that a sum of Rs. 50,000 claimed by the petitioner as compensation, is not excessive. The petitioner has thus proved his claim ex parte and he is entitled to get Rs. 50,000 from the opposite parties." Even in ex parte cases it is duty of Court to specify the sum as awarded under different heads. Granting a lump-sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation cannot be sustained. No reason has been given in the impugned order as to how the Court has arrived at the figure of Rs. 50,000. It appears that the Court was influenced by the fact that the claimant is a man of status and he has suffered loss. This may be one aspect of the matter. But how much amount should be awarded as compensation is another aspect of the case which ought to have been examined by the Tribunal.;