The court upheld the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, considering the nature of injury, extent of disability, and expenses incurred in treatment, and found it to be reasonable and adequate.

R. V. RAVEENDRAN, A. M. SAPRE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the insurance company (NA-3) under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 20. 10. 2000, passed by the learned Second Additional member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 378 of 1997.

( 2 ) IN this appeal, the appellant, i. e. , the insurance company has questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Member of Claims Tribunal to the claimant Virendra Singh, respondent No. 1, who expired pending this appeal and now represented by his legal representatives, the respondent Nos. 1 (i) to (iv)amounting to Rs. 7,47,630 for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 28/5/1997.

( 3 ) SO the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether claims Tribunal was justified on facts in determining compensation amounting to rs. 7,47,630 to an injured, i. e. , Virendra singh who met with a car accident that occurred on 28. 5. 1997. As observed supra, during pendency of this appeal injured died and hence, his legal representatives have been brought on record to represent the estate devolved upon them consequent upon the death of Virendra Singh. In this appeal, the appellant has not questioned any other findings such as issues regarding negligence and the liability of insurance company, etc. , though decided against the appellant. Similarly, claimants have also not filed any cross-objections or appeal in claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to take note of all facts in detail. Moreover, the appellant being the insurance company, their right to oppose the claim and challenge the findings of Tribunal recorded against them in appeal is quite limited. Since in this case the Tribunal has granted permission to the insurance company as contemplated under section 170 of the Act to contest the claim on all grounds and hence, they are in appeal to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

( 4 ) AS observed supra, it is an injury case. Injured, Virendra Singh, aged 48 years, working at the relevant time on the post of Radio Operator in State Police department suffered multiple injuries on his body in a car accident on 28. 5. 1997. The injuries virtually made injured a totally handicapped person. His half of the body became paralytic by a disease known as paraplegia of both limbs. Indeed this fact is amply proved by several medical certificates issued from time to time by the treating doctors (Exhs. P579, P264 and p9) and so on. It is also not in dispute or we may say amply proved by documentary evidence led by the claimant that he though was totally confined to bed from the date of accident (28/5/1997) till 3/1/2000 when joined the services but, eventually succumbed to injuries and died on 30. 3. 2002. It is also not in dispute as has come in evidence that though he joined the services but could do nothing because of his total incapacity to attend his day-to-day needs.

( 5 ) LEARNED Member of the Tribunal took into consideration the nature of injury, the extent of disability, resultant loss sustained by injured, both in terms of physical impairment as also loss in service, etc. , the expenses incurred in long treatment taken by injured and then came to a conclusion that a sum of Rs. 7,47,630 would be the reasonable, adequate and proper compensation payable for the injuries sustained. As observed supra, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle though suffered the award have not come forward to challenge the award on any ground. Instead, the insurance company has felt aggrieved and has filed this appeal challenging only the quantum of compensation awarded by the claims Tribunal.

( 6 ) HEARD Mr. H. G. Shukla, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. N. Dave, learned counsel for respondents.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant mainly attacked the finding in relation to determin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document