DINESH Vs. RAJENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>A.K.GOHIL,J.</DJG> This appeal is directed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 8th September, 1997 passed in Claim Case No. 145/1997 by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 3.4.1995 appellant Dinesh was working as a Hammal on Tata Truck No. MP-11-A/4147. The said truck was going from Dhamnod to Sehore. The said truck was owned by respondent No. 1 Rajendra s/o Omprakash Patidar and being driven by respondent No. 2 Manoj @ Gullu s/o Onkarlal Deshwali and was insured with Respondent No. 3 United India Insurance Company. The said track was driven by respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently and hit the another truck bearing registration number MBD-8530, which was standing on the left side of the road near Borwali Chowki, Sonkutch, District Dewas. As a result of this accident, appellant received fracture in both the legs and also received injuries in head and his 6 teeth were also broken and also received fracture of jaw. Jagdish, driver of Truck No. MBD-8530 immediately lodged the report to the police station. Appellant Dinesh was also taken to Sonkutch Hospital thereafter to Government Hospital, Dewas and thereafter he was referred to M.Y. Hospital, Indore where he remained hospitalised for 3-4 days. He was also hospitalised in Dental Hospital for 4-5 days. The matter was also referred to the Police Station Sonkutch (Dewas). The appellant filed claim petition for compensation. The Claims Tribunal after recording the evidence, recorded a finding about rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver and it was also found proved that in the accident appellant received various injuries. The Tribunal has also found that the appellant was drawing salary of Rs. 900.00 per month and after consideration the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 30,500.00 as compensation. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

(3.) BEFORE the Tribunal the appellant/claimant examined himself as PW-3; also examined Dallu, who was a co-Hammal as PW-2, and also produced various documents. The appellant also examined Dr. Manish Shrof, as P.W. 1 who was not a treating doctor; and Dr. Satish Shukla, as P.W. 2 who was Professor of Surgery in M.Y. Hospital who has certified that the appellant remained in M.Y. Hospital from 3.4.1995 to 9.4.1995 and received fracture of Maxilla Bone and he has also stated that the appellant was referred to Dental College as per discharge certificate. The appellant has not examined anybody from Dental College where he remained hospitalised for 3-4 days. Dr. Manish has also confirmed the statement about the fracture of Maxilla Bone. Both the doctors have not stated anything about the fracture m the legs. Dr. Manish was not a treating doctor, he had only examined the appellant after two years i.e. on 11.7.1997. Ex. P/2 is the discharge certificate from M.Y. Hospital. The appellant has also produced Ex. P/27 which is the discharge card of Dental College. Ex. P/28 is the M.L.C. report. From the M.L.C. report it is clear that there was a fracture in the Maxilla Bone of Jaw and his 2 teeth were broken.