K.S. Rathore, J. - (1.) SINCE all these four appeals are directed against the same impugned Award dated 15.06.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli (Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur) (for short the Tribunal), therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1095/1996:
(2.) THE present misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is directed against the impugned Award dated 15.06.96 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli (Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur) (for short 'the Tribunal) in Claim No. 123/1992, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,62,035/ - has been awarded in favour of the appellant. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.12.85 at about 1.30 p.m., the appellant along with other persons were coming in a car bearing No. HRU -2104 from Gurgaon to Jaipur. Near Shahpura the said car collided with the bus bearing No. RNP -255 driven by Gulab Singh, respondent No. of which RSRTC was the owner. The said RSRTC bus hit the car from back side and this accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the bus, in which the appellant sustained serious injuries. On account of these injuries, she remained in hospital for treatment for a long period and thereafter as per the advise of the doctor, the appellant was transferred from Jaipur to America for treatment. FIR was lodged by Dr. R.P. Rao at Police Station Shahpura regarding the accident and the police after investigation filed challan against the driver of the bus under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC.
(3.) IN the claim petition, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,62,035/ - as compensation to the appellant vide its impugned Award dated 15.06.1996, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant for seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has seriously erred in awarding Rs. 39,000/ - only towards treatment in India, whereas the appellant claimed Rs. 50,000/ - and the same was proved by leading sufficient evidence. The impugned award has also been challenged on the ground that the appellant could not work for last six months due to treatment and her income was 320 thousand dollar per month and the Tribunal has not properly considered the loss of income of six months during which she could not work.;