ABID SAGEER Vs. SURGYAN SHARMA
LAWS(RAJ)-2006-2-18
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on February 07,2006

Abid Sageer Appellant
VERSUS
Surgyan Sharma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.S.SARRAF,J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal of the claimant -appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment/award dated 14.6.1996 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputali, District Jaipur.
(2.) ACCORDING to the claim petition filed by the claimant -appellant in the g Tribunal the facts briefly are that on 20.12.1993 the claimant -appellant along with other persons was travelling in his car No. RJ -14 -C -9396 from Delhi to Jaipur. The truck No. RRA 7384 being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently hit the car at about 6 a.m. near Manoharpur, as a result of which the claimant -appellant suffered multiple fractures in his right hand and feet and his right eye was completely damaged and he also suffered various other injuries. The truck belonged to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and respondent No. 4 is the Insurance Company. The Tribunal after hearing the parties held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1 and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,72,394 to the claimant -appellant. Aggrieved by this judgment/award the claimant -appellant has filed this appeal. Mr. Mahendra Goyal, learned Counsel for the claimant -appellant submitted that the claimant -appellant has suffered 60% disability on account of loss of vision of right eye and 18% disability on account of fractures of right leg and left hand but the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. He has argued that the Tribunal has erred in not allowing compensation for loss of earning and earning capacity. He has also submitted that before the accident he was engaged with girl of Aligarh City in Uttar Pradesh but after the accident the engagement was broken on account of his disability. He has, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. He has placed reliance on 1993 (3) T.A.C. 219.
(3.) MR . Ram Singh Counsel for the respondent has stated that the judgment/award of the Tribunal is correct on facts and law and, therefore, there is no ground for interference.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.