( 1 ) THESE appeals have been preferred by the insurer assailing liability and the claimant praying for the enhancement in M. A. No. 1066 of 2002 whereas in M. A. No. 637 of 2002 the insurance company prayed that it cannot be made liable to pay compensation. Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 17-1-2002 passed by the VIII Additional Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in Claim case No. 327 of 2001.

( 2 ) ON 12-5-1991 at about 4-30 a. m. Prasanna Kumar Jha was coming from mandla on his motor cycle. A car driven by prateek Pathak, the respondent No. 2 owned by Dr. Bina Pathak, insured with New India assurance Co. Ltd. , dashed the motor cycle as a result of which claimant sustained grievous injury on his left thigh.

( 3 ) THE owner in the separate written statement denied the allegations and contended that respondent No. 3 was never authorised by her to drive the vehicle, only son of the owner, namely, Piyush Pathak who possessed the valid licence was authorised to drive the vehicle. The vehicle was not driven by Prateek Pathak at the relevant time.

( 4 ) THE insurer in the written statement contended that Prateek did not possess driving licence at the time of accident and the same amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence it is not liabie to compensate.

( 5 ) THE Claims Tribunal has found that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the car driver and also held that the respondent No. 1 has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30 per cent. Prateek Pathak did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. However, as the owner was not having the knowledge that vehicle was driven by Prateek Pathak, insurer was fastened with liability along with the driver and owner, jointly and severally to make payment of compensation.

( 6 ) MR. Anil Lala, learned counsel for claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs. 30,000 for permanent disability, continuous treatment for one and half years was obtained and it ignored the fact that in future the treatment was required, the compensation of Rs. 30,000 is inadequate. He has further submitted that on account of special diet, attendant and for conveyance the amount awarded by the tribunal isrs. 8,000. On account of pain and suffering the amount be suitably enhanced.

( 7 ) MR. Sanjay Sarvate, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that at the relevant time the vehicle was driven by prateek Pathak, only Piyush Pathak who had licence was authorised by owner to drive the vehicle. He has submitted in the first information report the name of the driver has not been mentioned. Thus, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation.

( 8 ) MRS. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel with Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. , submitted that the Tribunal has found that vehicle was driven by Prateek pathak, hence insurer be exonerated.

( 9 ) COMING to the question of quantum of compensation, it is not in dispute that the permanent disability to the extent of 30 per cent has been incurred in the left leg of the claimant-appellant. He was treated at jabalpur and Nagpur and thereafter was confined to house for one and a half years. It is clear that the surgery for removal of rod was yet to be performed. No document has been filed that the operation was required to be performed at Bombay by Dr. Dolakhia. Fact remains that 30 per cent permanent disability was incurred and rod was inserted and the removal of it was required.

( 10 ) IT is clear that the claimant was treated for the injury for considerable period of more than one year. On account of special diet no amount has been awarded. Thus, we award the sum of Rs. 10,000 on account of special diet for one year. On account of pain and suffering as we find that the sum of Rs. 5,000 is inadequate, we enhance it to Rs. 25,000. For the permanent disability of 30 per cent the sum of Rs. 30,000 has been awarded

Click Here to Read the rest of this document