G.S.SARRAF, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment/award dated 28.2.1995 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that on 4.8.1990 at about 11.00 a.m. the appellants Prem Prakash Mathur and his wife Smt. Kanti Mathur were going from Bapu Nagar to SMS Hospital, Jaipur by Scooter No. RSR -1623. The appellant Prem Prakash Mathur was driving the scooter whereas the appellant Smt. Kanti Mathur was a pillion rider. When the appellant Prem Prakash Mathur stopped the scooter at the traffic signal of Ram Bagh Circle a Tempo No. RSM -1425 came from behind and hit the scooter in consequence of which the two appellants Prem Prakash Mathur and Mrs. Kanti Mathur sustained injuries. According to the claim petition the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tempo by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the owner and respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company of the Tempo No. RSM -1425. After hearing the parties the learned Tribunal by a common judgment dated 28.2.1995 passed an award of Rs. 10,000 in favour of the appellant Prem Prakash Mathur (Motor Accident Claim No. 545/1991) and of Rs. 5,000 in favour of the appellant Smt. Kanti Mathur (Motor Accident Claim No. 546/1991). Aggrieved by the judgment/award the claimant -appellants have filed these two appeals. Mr. Sandeep Mathur, learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that in appeal No. 671/1995 the learned Tribunal has wrongly declined to consider the permanent disability certificate Exhibit -16 on the ground of non -examination of the doctor issuing the certificate because no such examination is necessary and the certificate Exhibit -16 itself proves that the appellant Prem Prakash Mathur suffered permanent disability in left lower limb to the extent of 18.80%. He has placed reliance on 2003 ACJ 289, 1420. He has further submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in the two cases is grossly inadequte and, therefore, it should be reasonably increased.
(3.) MRS . Manju Jain, Counsel for respondent No. 3 in both the cases has supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal.;