1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and ward dated 28th September 2000 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Dhrangadhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.156/98 (Original Motor Accident Claim Petition No.819 of 1991) whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.750/ along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
2.0 The appellant was working as cleaner in a truck bearing No.
G.R.W 2082. On 16th August 1990 the said vehicle dashed with S.T. Bus bearing No.GQE 9160. The appellant suffered injuries and had to take treatment. He therefore filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.3,50,000/ by way of compensation wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant has sustained 50% permanent disability and the right leg has been amputated below the knee and that the income of the appellant was Rs.800/ per month.
4.0 Learned advocate for the respondent No.5 Insurance Company has supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that nothing is produced on record to show that there was amputation of leg below the knee because of the accident in question.
5.0 A a result of hearing and perusal of the record it is found that the appellant had sustained certain injuries which could be cured for about 5 to 7 days. No evidence is produced on record to show that because of those injuries the leg was to be amputated. The certificate showing the amputation of leg and the reason thereof of any doctor. The injuries caused to the appellant were normal one which could not have resulted into amputation. No doctor was examined to prove the case of the appellant. In fact the appellant failed to prove that the handicap caused to him is due to the accident in question.
6.0 I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal.
7.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kusum Lata Vs. Satbir, reported in 2011(0) GLHELSC 49493 and in the case of Laxman alias Laxman Mourya V. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011(0) GLHELSC 50805. I have perused both the decisions. The facts of the present case are completely different from those decisions and therefore the ratio laid down in the said decisions are not applicable to the present case.
8.0 In the premises aforesaid I do not find any merits in the appeal.
The same is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*