- (1.) This is the insurer's appeal against the judgment and award dated 1.8.2003 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-Cum- Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Seraikella at Kharsawan in Compensation Case No. 32/1993 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,22.000/- to the claimant- respondent No. 1 along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim application and on failure to pay the same penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum against the appellant-Insurance Company.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the claimant-respondent No. 1 claimed compensation of Rs. 5.47 Lakhs for 90% disability caused to him by the vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle Jeep No. ORM-932. According to the claimant, on 12.9.90 he was driving a T.V.S. Moped bearing No. BPX-5040 along with one Kailash Chandra Agrawal (AW-1, the owner of the Moped). When he was passing through the village Okari on Sini-Kandra road, he was dashed by Jeep No. ORM-932, which was being driven rashly and negligently by one Niranjan Dey (respondent No.2) and as a result of which the claimant sustained multiple fracture injuries. The claimant had to undergo major surgery for three times and had to be confined to bed for a long period. Due to severe injuries, he has been rendered 90% permanently disabled. According to the claimant, he was carrying on and running a hotel business at Sini but due to his disability and restricted movement (only on cruches) he has been deprived of the capability of running his said hotel business out of which he used to earn about Rs.2,000/- per month. He claimed that he had to suffer a loss of 72,000/- during the period of three years of his treatment till 1993 and he had to spend Rs.75,000/- on medical treatment. The claimant thus claimed Rs.3,00000/- for loss of his efficiency and dependency and Rs.1,00000/- for mental pain and sufferings and the amounts of loss and medical expenses.
(3.) The owner and the driver initially appeared but subsequently the proceeding held ex parte and the Insurance Company- appellant contested the claim case. The parties led their respective evidence.;