Compensation for personal injury must be just and reasonable, reflecting the claimant's suffering and loss, with the court emphasizing the inadequacy of the Tribunal's award.

JUDGMENT :

Duppala Venkata Ramana, J.

This appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”, for short) has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 04.04.2005 in MVC No.109/2004 passed by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni (hereafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, for short).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The facts of this case are that the appellant Sudesh Pandey filed a claim application under section 166 of the Act against the respondents alleging that at the time of filing the claim petition he was aged about 31 years and working as advocate’s clerk and used to earn Rs.5,000/-per month. The accident took place on 21.02.2004 at about 3:00 pm. while he was proceeding towards Heeraganj from Nai Basti when he reached in front of Mangat Ram Hospital, Nai Basti, Katni, the offending motor cycle bearing No.MP 21 C 6745 came behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant/appellant driven by its rider (the first respondent) and sustained serious injuries and he was taken to the Hospital for treatment and he sustained fracture in left leg ankle bone and due to the injuries sustained by him, his left leg could not be cured and shortened, due to which, he got permanent disability. The matter was reported by the claimant to Police Katni alleging that the alleged accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the said motorcyclist by its rider. Basing on the report, Police Katni registered a case in Crime No.154/2004 for offence under sections 279 and 338 of IPC. After investigation of this case, charge-sheet was submitted against accused/driver (first respondent-Sudhir Kumar) for having committed offence punishable under sections 279 and 338 of IPC.

4. The appellant/injured filed an application claiming compensation a sum of Rs.3,40,000/-before the Claims Tribunal on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

5. The first and second respondents filed written statement jointly denied the allegations made in the claim petition and they averred that the vehicle in question did not involve in the accident, the claimant not sustained any permanent disability, the claimant/appellant with the connivance with the police filed a false case and it is further averred that the vehicle was insured with the third respondent, if any liability arises the same would be payable by the third respondent and they are not liable to pay any compensation.

6. The third respondent/insurance company filed a written statement denied the allegations made in the claim petition, further contended that the claimant has not filed any document regarding his age and income. Further contended that the first respondent not having valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, if there is any violation in terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insurance company/third respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

7. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues dated 28.09.2004 :-

(i). Whether on the date of accident, the non-applicant no.1 driving the motorcycle bearing no.MP21 C 6745 in a rash and negligent and causes the accident ?

(ii). Whether the appellant due to the grievous injuries sustained in the said accident suffered permanent disablement ?

(iii). Whether the vehicle was used against the terms and conditions of insurance policy ?

(iv). Whether the non-applicant no.1 was having a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident ? If yes, effect.

(v). Aid and expenditure ?.

8. In order to establish his claim at the time of inquiry, PW-1 to PW-4 were examined and exhibits Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16 were got marked on behalf of appellant/claimant. No evidence led and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents.

9. On appreciation of e