JUDGMENT
R.K. Verma, J.
1. This is an, appeal filed by the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation against the Award dated 30-10-1982 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh, in Claim Case No. 25 of 1980 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 38,640/- as compensation to the injured Claimant-respondent Shyam Kishore Malviya.
2. The material facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are as under : —
In the night intervening 8th and 9th February, 1980 the claimant-respondent boarded the Bhind-Bhopal Bus No. C.P.H. 8595 beloning to the appellant corporation, at Guna for going to Bhopal. At about 4 a.m. on the way, at a point two Kms., before reaching Biara the bus collided with three trucks which were parked on the left-side of the road, due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The claimant-respondent who was sitting in the bus at seat No. 1, just behind the driver, was seriously injured as a result of the accident. Besides, abrasions at 10 places of the body the Claimant sustained a compound fracture in the lower 1/3rd portion of the tibia bone of his right leg. The 3rd, 4th and 5th metatorsal bones of his left leg also got fractured and in the 5th metatrsal bone there was a crush fracture breaking it into 4 to 5 pieces. The claimant also sustained a fracture of his third rib because of which he had serious difficulty in breathing for as week. The claimant had to be on bed for three to four months for his medical treatment and recovery.
3. The claimant filed the claim petition on 30-8-1980 claiming a compensation of Rs. 62,640/-. The claim was resisted by the appellant Corporation. After trial the learned Tribunal has found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. As regards the Compensation the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 38,640/-as a total compensation payable to the claimant-respondent. Being aggrieved by the Award, the appellant Corporation has filed this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation has raised two contentions viz., that the claim petition was barred by time by 25 days and that the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant-respondent do not warrant a compensation to the tune of Rs. 38,640/- as awarded, the same being excessive.
5. As regards the first contention, the learned Tribunal has found that the original claim petition which had been sent by Registered post on 24-7-1980 to the Tribunal was not duly delivered to the Member Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh, to whom it was addressed and which should have normally reached him latest by 1-8-1980, a date well within the prescribed limitation. The second despatch containing the petition along with an application for condoning the delay was sent by Registered post on 30-8-1980 by way of abundant caution, which was received by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has in the aforesaid circumstances, condoned the delay and in our opinion, rightly so. The objection of the learned counsel as to limitation has, therefoe, no substance and deserves to be rejected.
6. As regards the compensation awarded to the claimant-respondent, the learned Tribunal has determined the special damages on account of the loss of four months’ earned leave due to the claimant, which was spent during his treatment, special diet and nursing charges during the period of treatment and expenses of his transport from Biaora to Bhind via Gwalior on a matador taxi. The loss of earned leave has been assessed at Rs. 6,640/-on the basis of salary of the claimant who is a
District Judge. The expenditure on each of the items of special diet and nursing charges during the treatment has been estimated by the learned Tribunal at Rs. 2000/- and the expenditure of Rs. 1000/- on transport as stated by the claimant has been accepted by the learned Tribunal. The aforesaid amounts constituting the special damages appear to us to be quite reasonable and there does not appear any scope for modifying the same, as has been suggested by the learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation.
7. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25000/- as general damages on account of the injuries including fractures, pain and suffering and the physical disability and discomfort which have come to stay with the claimant as a result of the accident. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that there is no medical evidence on record for estimating the extent of disability and therefore, the claimant’s statement that now he is handicapped in his movements, even after healing of the fractures sustained by him should not have weighed with the learned Tribunal in assessing the damages. The learned Counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, submitted that the evidence on record shows that the statement of the claimant has not been challenged by the appellant Corporation and as such it would only be reasonable to accept the statement of the claimant regarding the physical handicap that he experiences as an aftermath of the accident and to assess on that basis the damages as has been appropriately done by the learned Tribunal.
8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence on record and the award made by the learned Tribunal we are of the opinion that the amounts awarded as compensation by the learned Tribunal, cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjust so as to call for any interference in this appeal.
9. In the result this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs of this appeal which shall be borne by the parties as incurred.