JUDGMENT :

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the original claimant for the enhancement in the compensation granted by the learned Ex-Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon in M.A.C.P. No.425/2004 dated 24.11.2011.

2. The present appellant had filed said application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for getting compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in vehicular accident. The claimant had come with a case that he was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.MH 19/D-1088 from Bhusawal to Jalgaon on 02.05.2004. He reached on the highway near one Marble shop at about 7.00 p.m., at that time one passenger jeep bearing No.MH 19/J-1785 came rashly and negligently and gave dash to the motorcycle driven by claimant, as a result of which he sustained injuries. He was admitted to hospital of one Dr. Jadhav. He had undergone two operations and thereafter he has taken treatment from Dr. Lathi. He has also taken treatment from K.E.M. Hospital, Mumbai and J.J. Hospital, Mumbai. However, he has sustained permanent physical disability. He is unable to work as before. He was aged 48 at the time of accident and was working as a driver in a private company, earning Rs.5,500/- per month. It is contended that the said accident took place due to the rashness and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the jeep, which was owned by respondent No.2 and it was insured with respondent No.1. Compensation has been claimed from both the respondents, jointly and severally.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 resisted the claim by filing separate written statement. It has been contended that the petition is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties as a owner, insurer of the motorcycle have not been made as a party. Both of them have admitted that the jeep owned by respondent No.2 was insured with respondent No.1. However, the allegations regarding negligence in driving, on the part of the jeep driver, have been denied specifically. The insurance company has taken statutory defence.

4. Taking into consideration the rival contentions, issues were framed. It appears that only the claimant had led oral as well as documentary evidence. Taking into consideration the evidence on record the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that claimant had sustained injuries in the said accident, which was caused due to the negligence on the part of the jeep driver. It was held that there is no breach of terms of policy and therefore, both the respondents were liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Both the respondents have been directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till actual realization of the entire amount. Being aggrieved by the said amount granted by the learned Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement. The enhancement claimed by him is to the tune of Rs.17,86,000/-.

5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr. A.G. Kanade for respondent No.1-insurance company. Learned Advocate Mr. B.K. Patil for respondent No.2 was absent, when the matter was heard finally.

6. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Tribunal failed to consider that though the disability certificate shows, that the claimant sustained permanent disability to the extent of 75%, yet, from the testimony of CW 3 Dr. Sachin Ahire, it can be seen that claimant was even unable to stand and he has no power in his both legs. In clear terms, he has stated, that the claimant cannot drive any vehicle. The occupation of the claimant was driver and therefore, it ought to have been held by the learned Tribunal that there is total loss of income for the claimant. The claimant has in fact, examined the employee of the employer to prove income of the claimant as well as he has categorically stated that after the accident the claimant is no longer in their service