- (1.) THE appellant-claimant has laid the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.1, Udaipur (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal').
(2.) THE appellant preferred a claim petition before the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 for claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.27,40,000/-. Precisely, for claiming the compensation, the appellant has inter-alia averred in the claim petition that on fateful day of 5th of March 2012, when he was riding on his motorcycle bearing No.RJ27-SM-0100 and was proceeding towards home, the third respondent while driving his car No.RJ27- CB-3045 rashly and negligently caused accident and that resulted in serious injuries to the appellant. The appellant has claimed the said compensation on the ground that the grievous injuries suffered by him has resulted in 12% permanent disability. That apart, he has also claimed the compensation under various heads including the amount incurred by him for his treatment and medicines etc. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other materials on record, has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,55,000/- only. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. On perusal of the award, in my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in deciding issues No.1, 2 & 3 and furthermore the learned Tribunal has also arrived at a right conclusion while quantifying the amount of compensation payable to the appellant. While construing the disability certificate, the learned Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the said disability cannot be construed as a disability of serious nature resulting in 12% economic loss to the appellant. The said finding of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal, on appreciation of facts and the evidence on record, cannot be faulted. In this view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity, much less legal infirmity in the impugned award, and therefore, it is not a fit case wherein interfreence with the quantum of compensation is warranted.
(3.) THE net result of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed summarily.;