R.K. Agrawal JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In a motor accident, the Appellant herein suffered physical injuries. It happened on July 08, 2006 when the Appellant was going on a scooter to Gram Pendri in the State of Chhattisgarh. When he reached near Gram Pendri, a Hyundai Getz car bearing Registration No. MH 12 CR 6917, driven by Respondent No. 1, hit the scooter, as a result of which the Appellant fell down and sustained fractures on both the legs, thereby suffering permanent disability to some extent. He filed claim for compensation against the Respondents before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. The MACT, vide award dated May 05, 2009, granted him compensation in the sum of ` 5,35,227, under the following heads:
3. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the Appellant approached the High Court by way of appeal Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act'). The High Court has, vide impugned judgment, enhanced the compensation to ` 6,35,000. The High Court has not awarded compensation under different heads but has deemed it proper to award lump sum compensation in the aforesaid amount. Relevant discussion in this behalf can be traced to paras 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:
(8) We have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimant on the issue of injury sustained by him. In our opinion, taking into consideration the nature of injury, the permanent disability occurred on the body of the Appellant (claimant) to some extent, as a result of which he claims to be not as fit as he was prior to accident in his day-to-day work, resulting in reducing his capacity to do some extent of work, the expenditure incurred in receiving medical treatment in actual, the loss and mental pain suffered due to his involvement in accident we consider it proper to enhance in lump sum the compensation from Rs. 5,35,227/- to Rs. 6,35,000/-. In other words, in our view, the claimant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 6,35,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by him.
(9) In our considered opinion, due to injuries in both legs which is also duly proved in evidence by the claimant and his doctor, he cannot freely move and attend to his duties. His movements are restricted to a large extent and that too in young age. It is for all these reasons, we feel that the Tribunal had awarded a less compensation under this head and hence, some enhancement under the head of pain and suffering and also under the head of permanent partial disability and loss of earning capacity is called for. This enhancement figure is arrived at taking into consideration all relevant factors.
4. The Appellant is not satisfied with the aforesaid approach and the manner in which the compensation is awarded. According to him, had the Court applied proper provision and principles laid down under the Act, the Appellant would have been entitled to much more compensation.
5. We may state, at the outset, that the MACT recorded a specific finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of car by Respondent No. 1 which hit the scooter of the Appellant. Respondent No. 1 did not challenge the finding of the MACT and, therefore, this aspect has attained finality and we need not go into the........