R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 03.10.2007, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (A.D.J. Fast Track), Behror, District Alwar, ("the Tribunal", for short), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded merely a compensation of Rs. 37,054/ - to the appellant, the appellant has challenged the same before this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the claimant -appellant filed a claim petition against the respondents before the learned Tribunal under Section 140 read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,16,500/ - on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road accident on 03.11.2006. While the claimant was going on his motorcycle, suddenly an Indigo Car, bearing registration No. DL -3CW -6518, driven by the respondent No. 1, hit the motorcycle. Resultantly, the appellant sustained serious injuries; he file a claim petition. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted their reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No. 4, the Insurance Company, also filed its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. It further stated that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the injured -appellant himself. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed four issues. In order to prove his case, the claimant adduced oral and documentary evidence. On the other hand, the respondents did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. After hearing both the parties, vide award dated 03.10.2007, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation, as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, the learned Counsel for the claimant -appellant, has vehemently contended that while granting the compensation, the learned Tribunal has ignored the fact that according to Ex -12, the injury report, the appellant was hospitalized from 03.11.2006 to 07.11.2006 at the SMS hospital in Jaipur. Despite the availability of this documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has not paid any compensation to the appellant for the period of hospitalization. Secondly, the learned Tribunal has also failed to pay any compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant. According to his injury report, he had not only suffered injury on the hand, but most importantly he had suffered a fracture of rib. For the rest of his life, he is bound to suffer pain at the place of the fracture. Yet, the learned Tribunal has ignored this vital fact. Therefore, the compensation deserves to be enhanced.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. B.C. Rawat, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, has strenuously argued that since the appellant has been paid the amount spent by him on medicine, he need not have been compensated for his stay in the hospital. Secondly, the compensation is not supposed to be a bonanza; a just and reasonable compensation has been paid by the learned Tribunal. Hence, he has supported the impugned award.;