903

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 23.05.2003 passed by MACT, Gurgaon (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.116 of 11.12.2001 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.1,31,800/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant along with interest 9% per annum due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 20.10.2001, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, while driving offending vehicle bearing No.DL-1CG-2262 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.2, which was insured with respondent No.3.

2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

“1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 as alleged? OPP.

2) If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so how much and from whom? OPP.

3) Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR.

4) Whether there is violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR.

5. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the petition, as alleged? OPR

6. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPR

7) Relief.”

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,31,800/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

6. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, while driving offending vehicle bearing No.DL-1CG-2262, which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by the respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly, finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed.

7. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Registry and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the claimant had suffered multiple injuries on his face, including mouth. He remained admitted in the hospital. He had suffered fracture of left mandible and fracture of right maxilla and had lost 07 teeth as well as suffered 15% permanent disability but the compensation awarded is meagre. Learned counsel further argued that adequate compensation has not been awarded under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads and same is liable to be enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways and 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the award in question is adequate, well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for.

10. The law is well settled that the compensati