B.R.ARORA,J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal and the cross -objections are directed against the award dated 24.8.91 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/ - as compensation to the claimants and dismissed the remaining claim of Tahir Mohammed and others for the remaining amount.
(2.) TAHIR Mohammed filed the Claim Petition No. 169 of 1991 for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 10,80,000/ -. The case of the claimants, as set -out in the claim petition, is that he was the driver of truck No. RRJ 3819. He parked the truck on the Kaccha side of the road. A truck bearing No. RSM 1339 came from Udaipur side. Truck No. RSM No. 1339 was being rashly and negligently driven by its driver Dunga and it dashed against the stationary truck of the claimant. The truck, also, hit the claimant, due to which he fell down on the road. The truck crossed over his legs, due to which his left leg was completely smashed and he received fracture on the right leg. The left leg, which was completely smashed, was ultimately amputated. The truck No. RSM 1339, after hitting the truck of the claimant, fell in the ditch and three persons, viz., Munga -the driver of truck No. RRJ 3819, Cleaner Asha Ram and Ram Lal, died on account of this accident. On account of amputation of the left leg and fracture on the right leg, the claimant became permanently disabled and cannot do the job of driving the vehicle. He was getting the emoluments of Rs. 2,000/ - per month as the driver and since, now, with one leg he cannot drive the vehicle, therefore, he has suffered the loss of income of Rs. 9,60,000/ -. Rs. 1,00,000/ - were claimed on account of mental agony and physical pain and Rs. 20,000/ - were claimed against the medical expenses. The claim petition was not contested by the owner of the vehicle and was contested only by the Insurance Company. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after trial, by his Award dated 24.8.91, awarded the compensation as stated above. It is against this award that the appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. Aggrieved of the inadequate and lesser amount of the compensation, the claimant, also, filed cross -objections. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is highly excessive and the wrong multiplier has been applied. While awarding the compensation the learned Judge of the Tribunal has not considered the family status of the claimant and awarded the exorbitant amount of the compensation. It is, also, contended by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited only to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/ - but this aspect of the case has not been considered by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the claimant/cross -objector, on the other hand has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is much on the lower side and the claimant placed on record the evidence which clearly shows that the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is much on the lower side.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.;