JUDGMENT
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant against the judgment and award dated 16.9.1996 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur by which he awarded a sum of Rs. 61,916.00 as compensation to the appellant-claimant for his personal injuries, but this appeal has been filed for enhancement of amount of compensation upto Rs. 2,41,000/-.
2. It arises in the following circumstances:
The appellant-claimant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short “the Tribunal”) on 11.9.1991 against the respondents claiming Rs. 2,41,278/- as compensation for his personal injuries and damages for the scooter inter-alia stating that on 26.4.1991 at about 10.00 A.M. the appellant–claimant was going towards Jalori Gate, Jodhpur on his scooter bearing No. RNN 4022 with his friend Dinesh Tater, who was also sitting on the back seat of the scooter and at that time, a jeep bearing No. RJC 288. which was being driven by Pema Ram (respondent No. 1) came from the opposite side and that jeep was being driven by respondent No. 1 Pema Ram rashly and negligently and with excessive speed and the respondent No. 1 Pema Ram took the jeep on wrong side of the road and hit the scooter, as a result of which, both appellant-claimant and another claimant Dinesh Tater fell down from the Scooter and both sustained injuries and in that accident, scooter was also damaged. Because of that accident, the appellant-claimant’s right leg was got fractured and that fracture was compound one. The appellant-claimant was got admitted in the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur for treatment. A report was also lodged in the Police Station, Sardarpura, where FIR bearing No. 145/91 was registered and after investigation, police filed challan in the Court of Magistrate against the respondent No. 1. when the claim petition was filed by the appellant-claimant before the Tribunal, he was undergoing treatment.
It may be stated here that before the Tribunal, Dinesh Tater, who also sustained injuries in that accident, also filed a separate claim petition and both were heard and decided by the Tribunal through common judgment and award dated 16.9.1996.
A reply to the claim petition was filed by the respondents.
Thereafter, issues were framed by the Tribunal on 23.11.1993 and both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases.
After hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the entire evidence and material available on record. the learned Tribunal through judgment and award dated 16.9.1996 awarded compensation of Rs. 61,916.00, as stated above, to the appellant-claimant in the following manner:
(i) Rs. 7687.91 For medical expenses based on Exhibits 9 to 67.
(ii) Rs. 5000.00 For the services rendered to the appellant claimant by the servant as the
appellant--claimant was not in a position to work for a period of six months.
(iii) Rs. 40000.00 As general damages for mental and bodily pain.
(iv) Rs. 500.00 For torn clothes.
(v) Rs. 5000.00 For rest for two months.
(vi) Rs. 3728.00 For damages to the Scooter.
Total: Rs. 61915.91 (61916.00)
Dissatisfied with the above amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal through impugned judgment and award dated 16.9.1996, the appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal:
3. In this appeal, it has been contented by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant that since the injury on the right leg of the appellant-claimant had resulted in total full functional in-capacity therefore, the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal was not just and proper compensation and furthermore, the appellant-claimant could walk with the help of clipper and thus, the impugned judgment and award should be modified and the amount of compensation should be enhanced to Rs. 2,41,000.00.
4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant–claimant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and gone through the materials available on record.
6. While deciding the issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal has bifurcated the amount awarded to the appellant-claimant on various aspects, just mentioned above. The learned Tribunal has specifically observed that the Certificate of permanent disability has not been produced by the appellant-claimant and, therefore, from this point of view, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as general damages for mental and bodily pain.
7. The injury report of the appellant-claimant is Ex. 3, which shows that he received four injuries and X-ray was advised for injury No. 1 and X-ray report is Ex. 4, which shows that there was a fracture of upper shaft of right tibia and fibula and thus, injury No. 1 was assessed by the Radiologist as grievous in nature.
8. No doubt from the statement of the appellant-claimant Shripal Chand (PW 1), it appears that he was operated twice, but there is no evidence on record to the effect that the said injury No. 1 of injury report (Ex. 3) of appellant-claimant was ever treated as permanent disability.
9. Thus, in view of the above fact, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant-claimant cannot be said to be unreasonable and unjust, but on the contrary, it appears to be just and reasonable one.
10. Generally people have mis-apprehension that the injured or claimants of deceased are entitled to be fully compensated for all the loss and determents suffered. In my view, this is not the correct proposition of law. The victim or the claimants of the victim are only entitled to what is, in the circumstances, a fair compensation, fair both to the victim and to the tortfeasor.
11. Apart from this, the amount of compensation awarded must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation and regard must be had towards in comparable cases and the sums awarded should, to a considerable extent, be conventional.
12. Keeping the above aspects into consideration, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant-claimant in no manner appears to be unjust and unreasonable and rather from every point of view, it appears to be just and reasonable one. The Tribunal has not committed any illegality or infirmity in awarding the amount of compensation to the appellant-claimant.
13. Had there been a Certificate to the effect that the injury No. 1 of injury report Ex. 3 of appellant-claimant was of character of permanent disability and in absence of that, the appellant-claimant is not entitled to enhancement of amount of compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal.
14. Furthermore, while awarding compensation to the appellant–claimant. the Tribunal has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter and if, for the sake of argument, any consideration is left, it would not effect the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant-claimant as from every point of view, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant-claimant appears to be just and reasonable one.
15. For the reasons stated above, no case for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded to the appellant-claimant by the Tribunal through judgment and award dated 16.9.1996 is made out and thus, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this appeal filed by the appellant-claimant is dismissed. No order as to costs.