Satish Kumar vs M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another

Deepak Kumar, J.—Since both the appeals arise out of the same award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in M.V. Case No. 18/91, decided on 14.7.1993, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. One appeal has been preferred by the claimant for awarding him compensation at the enhanced rate and another has been preferred by the owner and driver of the bus for reducing the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

Material facts are mentioned herein below: On 20.3.1990, in the morning at about 11.30 to 11.45 a.m. respondent Satish Kumar met with an accident while he was travelling on his Luna observing the road rules. A bus belonging to the M.P.S.R.T. Corporation appellant No. 1, driven by respondent No. 2, came and violently dashed against the respondent. The respondent sustained compound fracture of hip bone and other injuries. His injury was certified as permanent in nature by the doctor Devendra Kumar Jain, RW. 5. The doctor further certified that this permanent disability was to the extent of 40%. The claimant at the time of the accident was aged about 26 years and was working as an Office Assistant in the Kesar Steels and was drawing a salary of Rs. 820/- per month. On consideration of the evidence available on record, the claim Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

We have accordingly heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record. In our considered opinion, looking to the nature of permanent disability sustained by the claimant, just and proper amount of compensation has been awarded. The accident had taken place some time in the year 1990. There is no fresh medical certificate filed by the claimant to show that there has been a further increase in his permanent disability. The medical expenses incurred by the claimant have also been taken care of while awarding the amount of compensation. It is not the case of the claimant that on account of injury, he was sacked from the employment. The fracture has also been united, which is mainfest from the doctor''s certificate. Thus, looking to the aforesaid facts and features of the case, we are of the opinion that just, proper and adequate compensation has been awarded.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we find that both the appeals have got no merits or substance. The same are hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment be retained in the connected appeal.