G.R.MOOLCHANDANI,J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the award dated 18.6.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in Claim Case No.387/2001 (77/2001) and the Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 37,500/- with interest at the rate of 6.75%. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-claimant has filed this appeal.
(2.) Brief facts relating to the accident defines that the appellant while returning to his home on his Luna, a car bearing registration No. RJ-22-0366 came from Pindawara side and suddenly collided with the moped while turning towards petrol pump, resultantly the appellant felt down and ferried to the hospital in the same car. The car driver was driving the vehicle fastly and negligently so, the accident was occurred, his leg sustained injuries and FIR was lodged under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C., Section 338 I.P.C. was further added. The learned tribunal passed the impugned award for Rs. 37,500/- on the basis of evidence of the appellant-claimant, the tribunal has held that both the drivers were equally liable and accordingly the award is adjudicated contributorily.
(3.) Submitting the arguments for appellant, learned counsel has said that the tribunal has wrongly read the evidence and has erroneously decided that both the vehicles and drivers were negligent by 50%. The injured appellant was not negligent at all and has suffered a permanent disability of 20%, but the learned tribunal has awarded compensation for permanent disability inadequately referring the evidence adduced by the appellant-claimant, he has submitted that a positive evidence was given before the tribunal that moped driver was going in very slow speed on his correct side and the hitting car came rashly and dashed with the moped, charge sheet was also filed against the car driver. Relying upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jiju Kuruvila and Others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and Others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166, he has submitted that the site plan has not rightly been appreciated by the tribunal. The learned tribunal has wrongly read and appreciated the evidence and site spot map and there is no evidence with respect to contributory negligence on the part of moped driver, so-called eye-witness Chhagan was also not produced or called by the respondent and finding to this effect is based on conjectures, so is liable to be reversed. The tribunal has also not awarded any compensation for future earnings, which are to be increased even in case of retired person and a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for permanent disability must have been awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal may be allowed and the award may be altered as prayed. Per contra, counsel for the respondent relying and quoting the judgment of Pramod Bhai Javari has submitted the entire piece of evidence relating to negligence is to be appreciated in totality, the tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence. Injured has himself omitted narration as to which side, he was proceeding. Learned counsel has also submitted that even permanent disability certificate has not been submitted on prescribed proforma, which is contrary to the Motor Vehicles Rules. Learned counsel has further submitted that the award passed by the tribunal is correct and appeal has got no force. ;