- (1.) THE appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988'), for enhancement of quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (for short, 'the learned Tribunal'). Before the learned Tribunal, in all, 13 claims were laid for claiming compensation arising out of the same accident including the claim of the appellant. The learned Tribunal adjudicated all the claims by a common award dated 18th of December 1999.
(2.) SCORNING the facts in detail, the brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that on the fateful day of 8th June 1991, when appellant with other co-passengers was travelling in the vehicle of third respondent, bearing No. RJR 7260, the said vehicle met with an accident due it its rash and negligent driving and that resulted in injuries to the appellant as well as other co- passengers. As per the version of the appellant in the claim petition, due to occurrence of the accident, he suffered simple injuries and fracture of his right 4th to 7th ribs. The claim petition was contested by the respondents refuting all the averments contained in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal, after examining the matter in its entirety and considering the evidence and other materials on record, partly allowed the claim petition of the appellant and allowed him compensation to the tune of Rs.16,000/- only against the total claim of Rs.1,09,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Manoj Joshi, has vehemently argued that assessment of the compensation by the learned Tribunal in light of injuries suffered by the appellant is grossly inadequate and therefore, the amount of compensation deserves enhancement. Mr. Joshi submits that the appellant in his deposition has proved his entire case and has been able to make out a strong case for reasonable compensation, but the learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation has not cared to examine the oral as well as medical evidence tendered by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant was working as a labourer for earning his livelihood and due to the accident he remained idle for more than three months, and the accident has also impaired his efficiency as a labourer, but the learned Tribunal has not allowed any compensation under the head 'future loss of income'. Thus, the sum and substance of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded to the appellant is not commensurating with the injuries suffered by the appellant, and in total defiance of its ill effects on his future loss of income.
(3.) PER contra, learned counsels for the respondents have submitted that the appellant has suffered simple fractures of ribs and as such the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just, which calls for no enhancement. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, no serious injury was suffered by the appellant resulting in his disablement, and therefore, no interference with the impugned award is warranted.;