JUDGMENT
Deepak Verma and S.K. Seth, JJ.
1. Mr. J.M. Punegar, the learned counsel for the appellant; none for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. R.J. Pandit, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
2. With consent, the arguments heard. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 30.11.2002 passed by the 14th M.A.C. Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 231 of 2001, whereby the claim petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant did not sustain the injuries in a road accident. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that this finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record and cannot be sustained.
3. After going through the evidence, we find that the appellant was travelling as a bona fide passenger in the bus bearing registration No. MP 09-S 7399, while he was travelling from Indore to Khategaon. At the time of the accident, the bus was being driven by respondent No. 2 Prahalad. The respondent No. 1 was the owner of the offending bus which was insured with respondent No. 3 at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has taken hypertechnical view of the matter in holding that the appellant was not a passenger in the bus, as his name was not mentioned in the first information report lodged at the Police Station, Hat Piplya or in the list of injured persons. The appellant had stated in his deposition that on account of the injuries sustained by him, he had fainted at the spot and regained consciousness only in the hospital. If somebody, who lodged the report or prepared the list of injured persons did not mention the name of the appellant, that does not mean that the appellant had not sustained the injuries in the accident. In support of the claim, the appellant had filed the ticket purchased by him and also a newspaper containing a news item that the appellant had sustained the injuries in the accident, involving the bus in question. Thus, it is clear that the appellant was very much there in the bus at the time of the accident and on account of the accident he has sustained injuries. From the evidence on record, it is also established that respondent No. 2 Prahalad was driving the bus at a great speed and he could not control the vehicle, as a result it turned turtle. Not only the appellant, but other passengers also received injuries, as is made clear from the evidence of AW 2 Prakash, a co-passenger in the bus on the fateful day. Thus, the respondent No. 2 was responsible for causing the accident on account of his rash and negligent driving, therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 along with respondent No. 2 are liable to pay the compensation to the appellant. To prove the nature and extent of injuries, affidavit of Dr. Anup Dubey was filed. From the contents of the affidavit it is clear that on account of the accident the appellant had sustained fractures in the spinal cord. According to the doctor who had examined the appellant, the total percentage of the disability by the appellant is to the tune of 20 per cent and the certificate in this regard had been proved as Exh. P-52. The appellant has also filed medical papers and the prescription including the discharge card, salary certificate. At the time of the accident, the appellant was employed privately but he knew driving also and his driving licence is on record as Exh. P-35. From the evidence of the appellant, it is clear that appellant underwent treatment at City Nursing Home, Indore where on account of the head injury stitches were put. Dr. Dubey has also stated in his affidavit that appellant has to wear medically designed belt for support of the waist. The appellant complained of pain in the back and swelling, which aggravate on account of the brisk walking, bending forward or lifting any heavy weight. Thus, looking to the nature and extent of injuries, it is clear that the appellant had sustained permanent disability and he has to live with it throughout his life. At the time of the accident, the age of the appellant was only 39 years and he was getting salary of Rs. 2,000. The appellant remained absent from duty for a period of four months during which he was under treatment. On account of the injuries in the spinal cord his overall working capacity has been reduced.
4. In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 inclusive of all the past and future medical expenses would be the just and proper amount of compensation, which the appellant is entitled to recover from the respondents jointly and severally. Thus, the appeal is allowed with costs throughout. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application till it is actually paid. The respondent No. 3 shall bear the costs throughout. Counsel’s fee Rs. 1,000, if certified.