M.M.Kumar, J. - (1.) This is claimant's appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity 'the Act'), challenging award dated 23.1.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, (for brevity 'the Tribunal). It has been held that claimant- appellant sustained injuries in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of motor-cycle No. HRM-5421 which was being driven by one Raja Ramrespondent No. 1. It has also been categorically held that the claimant appellant who was aged 40 years at the time of accident suffered five injures on his person which is proved by MLR Ex.PA. The aforementioned MLR has been proved by PW1 Dr. P.K. Jain. The injuries as given in MLR Ex.PA are as under: 1. There was a fracture compound of the right leg lower 1/3rd. 2. There was a swelling on the wrist and right forearm lower part adjoining wrist. Movements of this joint were very much tender and crackling sounds heard. Advised X-ray. 3. There was swelling on the wrist at left forearm lower part adjoining wrist. Movements were tender. Advised for X-ray. 4. A lacerated wound 5 cms. X 1 cms. On the right forehead. Bone was fractured and brain matter was coming out. Bleeding was profuse. 5. An incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.3 x 0.8 cm on the right side of forehead just above the four injuries.
(2.) The eye witness account of the accident has been unfolded by one Ram Avtar PW2, who had disclosed that the claimant- appellant was coming on a bicycle when a motor-cycle being driven by respondent No. 1 dashed in him which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The claimant- appellant is stated to have suffered injuries on his forehead and other parts of the body and thereafter injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Narnaul. PW3 also corroborated the version of PW2 in respect of factum of accident and that respondent No. 1 was rash and negligent in driving his motor-cycle. The finding of the Tribunal appears in para 16, which shows that respondent No. 1 was also smelling alcohol. The aforementioned para reads as under: 16. In view of the consistent statement of PW2 and PW3 and the inconsistent version of respondent No. 1, it is clearly proved that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of motor-cycle in question by respondent No. 1 belonging to respondent No. 2 as the respondent No. 2 has admitted that he did not bother to see whether his name has been changed in the registration certificate. From the statement of PW1-Dr. P.K. Jain, it is also proved that the petitioner as well respondent No. 1 had sustained injuries in a motorvehicular accident and that at the time of examination, the respondent No. 1 was smelling alcohol. Thus, it can safely be held that the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of motor-cycle No. HRM-6421 by respondent No. 1. Accordingly, both these issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents." The claimant- appellant was held entitled to a princely sum of Rs. 4,000/- on account of injuries and mental agony suffered by him. The compensation was ordered to be paid by respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly as well as severally. He was also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
(3.) There are numerous factors which have weighed with the Tribunal for awarding such a partly sum. Those factors have been elaborated in para 18 and the same reads as under: 18. In the present case, the petitioner has not proved that how many days, he received treatment and from which doctor or hospital. The factum that the petitioner received treatment at different places does not prove that he spent Rs. 15,000/-on his treatment. The petitioner has orally given his income as Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1200/- but there is no evidence about the income of the petitioner nor it could be proved that because of accident, how the petitioner has been rendered unfit to do any work. No details about amount spent on medicines and good diet have been placed on case file. Even the oral version about the expenses is highly contrary as the petitioner has stated that he spent Rs. 1500/-, then stated Rs. 15,000/- on his treatment. Thus, there is neither any documentary evidence nor any oral evidence about the factum of treatment expenses viz. on medicines and good diet.;