ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by appellant – insurance company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 09.01.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1138 of 1988, by which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.76,120/- with 9% per annum interest to the claimant.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :

2.1 On 05.03.1988 at about 12:00 noon, after completing the greasing work, when he was standing on left side kachcha road, at that time, one Matador Tempo bearing registration No.GQB 4705 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed from behind the claimant. As a result, the claimant thrown off the road because of the impact of the tempo and sustained grievous injuries. After causing the accident, the driver of the tempo fled away from the place of occurrence. An FIR came to be lodged before the concerned police station. The claimant has, therefore, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for getting compensation.

2.2 Notices were served to the opponents i.e. driver, owner and insurance company of the Matador Tempo. The insurance company has filed its written statement at Exh.26 and denied the averments made by the claimant. The Tribunal has framed the issues. The oral as well as documentary evidence have been led before the Tribunal. After considering the submissions made by the rival parties, the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award by awarding compensation as noted above.

2.3 Hence, this appeal is by the appellant – claimant for enhancement of the claim before this Court.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim for the appellant – claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding only Rs.76,120/- as compensation to the claimants, where it is a clear case of the claimant before the Tribunal that the claimant in his deposition at Exh.27 has stated about his injuries where he has stated that he got serious injuries on right eyebrow, on nose and on leaps. There were about ten steaches on the right eyebrow. He got fracture injury on Thigh and due to said injury, his urinary system was blocked and had to apply catheter for passing urine. He remained in the hospital as an indoor patient initially for 17 days and thereafter again for 5 days and even after that, he could not get proper recovery. The said catheter was removed after three months. He has pointed out from the deposition of the Doctor where Dr.Vivek Agrawal has supported the case of the claimant in his deposition at Exh.42 about the difficulties in urination and the Doctor has also opined that the claimant may have problem in his sexual life and also may have permanent problem in urination. Therefore, he has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation of Rs.76,120/- though the claimant has claimed for Rs.2 lakhs. Therefore, he preferred the present appeal for enhancement of Rs.1 lakh. He has submitted that atleast Rs.1 lakh may be awarded in view of the above facts. Therefore, under the had of loss of amenities and prospects of marriage life, atleast Rs.1 lakh is required to be awarded.

3.2 Learned advocate for the claimant has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G.Ravindranath alias R. Chowdary versus E.Srinivas reported in (2013) 12 SCC 455, more particularly Paras : 19 and 23, which are as under : “19. PW-2 - Dr. P.V.L.N. Murthy, Professor of Urology and H.O.D. of Urogoly, NIMS gave detailed description of the nature of injuries and the treatment given to the appellant in the following words:

"On 1-11-2000 the patient was admitted on emergency ward under the care of emergency Medical department or the poetics ward/Urology. An initial emergency treatment was given and discharged on 3.11.2000 with advise to review in urology O.P and Ortho O.P after three weeks. By the time he was admitted here he was with a SPC through which Urine was co