- (1.) THE appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 27.1.2007 passed by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Bokaro in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 55 of 2003, whereby the compensation amount of Rs. 35,000.00 was awarded to the claimant. The grievance of the appellant is confined only to the quantum of compensation awarded to him,
(2.) FACTS of the case in brief, on the basis of which the claim for compensation was preferred before the tribunal, is that on 16.2.2007 while the claimant was going on his motorcycle towards the market, a Jeep bearing registration No. BPO 5134 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed against the motorcycle and as a result of which, claimant sustained multiple injuries including fracture of his left thigh an right wrist. He was admitted to the Bokaro General Hospital where he had obtained medical treatment. Though, he was discharged from the hospital after obtaining the medical treatment, the injuries had left him disabled since he had developed post traumatic permanent left lower limb disablement. Claiming that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, the claimant had preferred his claim for compensation for a sum of Rs. 2,90 lakhs against the owner of the offending vehicle as also against the insurer for the pain and suffering, loss of earning for the period during his medical treatment and also for the loss of future earning due to injury sustained by him. Both the respondents namely the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle had contested the claim of the claimant. The tribunal proceeded to decide on the maintainability of the claim petition and had held that the claimant did suffer injury in the accident which had occurred involving the vehicle and had held that the claimant is entitled to the claim and receive compensation for the injury sustained by him. The tribunal had further held that the respondent No. 2 namely, the National Insurance Company being the insurer of the offending vehicle, was liable to pay the compensation amount. However, on the point of compensation, learned tribunal had assessed the same on the basis of the evidences on record regarding the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his medical treatment and also expenses incurred in engaging services of attendants during the period of his medical treatment and had confined the quantum of compensation to a sum of Rs. 35,000.00 only. The tribunal did not award any compensation towards the loss of earnings on the ground that the claimant had not suffered any loss during the period of his medical treatment at the hospital since his employer had paid him his salary during the period of his medical leave and further, that the claimant has also not suffered any loss of future earnings since he has continued to work in the same capacity despite his disablement in the left lower limb and has in fact, got an increment of his salary during the subsequent period of his continued employment. The appellant has assailed the impugned order of the tribunal in respect of quantum of compensation on the ground, that it is too meager and that the learned tribunal has grossly erred in failing to consider that the claimant had spent more than Rs. 17,000.00 towards hospital charges for his medical treatment and also Rs. 7,000.00 for purchase of medicines besides expenses incurred for engaging attendants during the period of his medical treatment. It is also claimed that the tribunal has failed to consider that the claimant had suffered mental and physical pain and agony as a result of the injury sustained by him and that such agony does still persist on account of the permanent disablement of his left lower limb which has disabled him from gaining his original gait and physical comfort.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent insurance company while supporting the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal as fair and just, argues that the claimant has admittedly not suffered loss of earnings either during the period of his medical treatment or even post accident and, therefore, he could be entitled only to the expenses incurred for his medical treatment which, on the basis of the evidences adduced by the claimant, has rightly been assessed by the tribunal and the maximum amount of compensation which could be paid, has been awarded to the claimant.;