Sandeep vs Parmod Rana And Anr.
2006 Latest Caselaw 2163 Del

JUDGMENT

J.P. Singh, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 14.9.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, in a case of injury caused to the appellant due to vehicular accident. Compensation of Rs. 1,17,500 was granted. The appeal is for enhancement of the compensation.

2. I have heard Mr. S.N. Parashar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.L. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record.

3. Briefly the facts are that on 2.12.2001 the appellant Mr. Sandeep and his brother Mr. Ravi Sharma were traveling in TSR (three-wheeler scooter) along with other passengers. A car driven by respondent No. 1 driver-owner at a high speed hit the TSR. Appellant-petitioner was injured. The FIR was registered. Respondent No. 2 is the Insurance Company. It was alleged that large number of passengers comprising a barat party were traveling in the three-wheeler scooter and the TSR deriver was unable to see the car and was at fault. The vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2. The following issues were framed:

Issues:

1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in the road accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of car No. DL-8C-F-7550 by respondent No. 1?

2. To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and if so, from whom?

3. Relief.

4. The issue No. 1 was decided in favor of the petitioner. While dealing with issue No. 2 the various injuries caused to the appellant have been mentioned. At the relevant time he was studying in 7th Class. It is mentioned that all the medical bills were not produced in the Court except for a sum of Rs. 1800. There is 27.5 % disability. The learned Tribunal has noted that the appellant had suffered very serious injuries and also noted that in such cases of injury a good amount of compensation is to be granted with a view to help the injured for restoration of his health as also for giving him compensation and has detailed the various heads under which the compensation has been granted. The Tribunal has very elaborately discussed every aspect of the case and, in my view, has granted a just and adequate compensation under all the heads despite the fact that admittedly five persons were sitting with the driver of the TSR including the appellant and five-six persons were sitting on the main seat. They were returning from a wedding party and must be in a hilarious mood and that may have added to the cause of the accident.

5. Considering all the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.