( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of M. A. No. 260 of 1998, Kirti v. Rajendra and M. A. No. 261 of 1998, Tejubai v. Rajendra, as both appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 20. 11. 1997 passed by motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West nimad, Mandleshwar, in Claim Case No. 7 of 1996.

( 2 ) THE case of the claimants-appellants was that on 7. 6. 1995, they were travelling in jeep No. MP 10-9860 owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2 drove it rashly and negligently. There was collision between this vehicle and a truck coming from the opposite direction at high speed, as a result of which Tejubai sustained injuries on her right hand while kirti got her right leg fractured. They were admitted in T. Choithram Hospital and tejubai's right hand and Kirti's right leg were amputated. Tejubai had filed Claim petition No. 9 of 1996 seeking compensation of Rs. 8,05,000. Kirti had claimed rs. 7,30,000 as compensation in Claim case No. 7 of 1996 against the respondents. The respondents resisted the claim and pleaded that the claim was not maintainable as the owner, driver and insurer of the truck were not made party. The tribunal found that the drivers of both vehicles were equally negligent for the accident and awarded compensation of rs. 1,13,000 to Tejubai and Rs. 1,05,000 to Kirti but directed the respondents to pay 50 per cent of the above sum with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The claimants have preferred these appeals for enhancement of compensation amount.

( 3 ) MR. Rajpal, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal fell in error in holding that the respondents were liable to pay 50 per cent of the compensation amount. He also contended that the amount of compensation is also on lower side. On the other hand, Mr. Mandloi, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that the amount awarded to the claimants is on higher side and it deserves reduction. He further submitted that the tribunal rightly found the respondents liable to pay 50 per cent of the compensation amount.

( 4 ) WE considered the rival contentions made by learned counsel for both sides and perused the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal and evidence on record. It has come in the evidence of bhawani Singh, CW 2, Tejubai, CW 3, and Lokendra Singh, CW 4, that the respondent No. 2 was driving the jeep at a very high speed. At about 2. 30 a. m. one truck came from opposite direction at high speed and they collided with each other. The Tribunal discussed the evidence on record and rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles.

( 5 ) NOW, we come to the adequacy of the amount of compensation. It has come in the evidence of Tejubai that she sustained injuries in her right hand, she was admitted in T. Choithram Hospital where her right hand was amputated. She produced cash memo Exhs. P-1 to P-32. According to her, Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 40,000 were spent in her treatment. She was not in a position to do her household work, therefore, she had to engage a maid servant on a monthly salary of Rs. 700. The tribunal awarded Rs. 17,000 for medical expenses. It assessed the income of Tejubai at Rs. 500 per month and taking her age to be 35 years, applied the multiplier of 16 and determined her future loss of income at Rs. 96,000 and awarded total amount of compensation of Rs. 1,13,000. In our opinion, the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,13,000 cannot be said to be on lower side, it is just and reasonable. Tejubai deposed that Kirti sustained injury on her right leg. It was amputated from below knee in T. Choithram Hospital. She spent about Rs. 40,000 in her treatment. She has become permanently disabled and it is very difficult for her to marry. The tribunal taking into consideration the cash memos and other documents awarded rs. 18,500 for medical treatment. It assessed future loss of income at the rate of rs. 400 per mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document