ORDER

1. The appellant/claimant has filed the present appeal u/s. 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of the compensation as well as modification in the award dated 25.2.2008.

2. The facts of the case, in short, are as under :

According to the appellant/claimant, he was working as a Bus Conductor. On 15.2.2005 at 3.30 pm. respondent No.1 was driving the Staff Bus bearing Registration No. MP-13-C-4466 owned by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 driven the bus rashly and negligently and dashed it with the factory-gate due to which wind-shield broken and the appellant sustained injuries on his body and a piece of glass of window hit his right eye. He was admitted in M.Y. Hospital, Indore for treatment and he suffered permanent disablement. He filed the Claim Case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) claiming the compensation of Rs.6,30,000/-.

2.1 Respondent No.2 filed the reply denying the accident as well as compensation. Respondent No.3/Insurance Co. also denied the accident as well as employment of the appellant with respondent No.2 as Bus Conductor. The MACT framed 5 issues for adjudication. The issues were answered in favour of the appellant/claimant and vide award dated 25.2.2008 compensation of Rs.35,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 8.11.2006 payable by the respondents jointly and severally has been awarded.

3. The claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation and the rate of interest @ 12% per annum. Respondent No.3/Insurance Co. has filed Cross-Objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the C.P.C. challenging the liability to pay the compensation by the Insurance Co. According to respondent No.3/Insurance Co., there was a delay in lodging the FIR. The accident took place on 15.2.2006 and the FIR was lodged on 10.5.2006 without explaining the delay. Therefore, in order to get the compensation the vehicle in question has falsely been implicated in this case.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of court below.

4. So far as enhancement of the amount of compensation is concerned, learned MACT has awarded the compensation of Rs.30,000/- as a lumpsum amount and in addition, awarded Rs.5,000/- for the problem which is likely to come in his marriage due to the disablement. The claimant examined himself and according to him, he has suffered loss of 30% vision as certified by Dr. Preeti Rawat, Eye Specialist, M.Y. Hospital, Indore by issuing a certificate. However, Dr. Preeti Rawat has not been examined by the claimant to establish 30% visual disability. In the said certificate the Doctor has clarified that the claimant is not entitled to get the facilities provided to visually handicapped person. However, it has been said that he is a one eyed person and visuality of his right eye is NOPL. According to the appellant/claimant, he would get problem in the marriage in the society because of this disability.

5. In the claim case as well in the evidence, the claimant has not given reasons for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- because of this disablement. The appellant has not obtained the disablement certificate from the District Medical Board which is competent to certify the permanent disablement. Therefore, compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the learned MACT in absence of any evidence cannot be said to be an inappropriate compensation. So far as mental agony is concerned, certainly, because of this disablement of loss of vision in one eye for ever, Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the learned MACT is on lower side.

6. So far as cross-objection filed by the respondent/Insurance Co. is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Co. submits that the appellant/claimant did not lodge the FIR immediately after the accident. The owner of the vehicle did not inform about the accident to the Insurance Co.