HITESH Vs. P. SWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Claimant under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the impugned award dtd. 12/11/2018 passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Cases No. 173/2017.

(2.) Claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed before the Claims Tribunal inter alia on the ground that on 7/4/2016 at the plot of Appellant/Claimant, boring work was going on, the work was carried out by Respondent No.1/driver of the bore machine bearing Registration No. CG 10 M 2700, which was owned by Respondent No.2 and insured with Respondent No.3. At that time the Appellant/Claimant was present there and due to negligence of Respondent No.1, bore pipes which were kept in boring machine fell on shoulder of the Appellant/Claimant due to that the Appellant/Claimant sustained multiple injuries, his spinal cord was snapped and his lower body became permanent paralyzed for whole life. A report was made against driver of the bore machine/Respondent No.1, on the basis of said report, criminal case was registered against him and charge-sheet was filed. Due to the said accident, backbone of the Appellant broken from two places. He was treated in Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur and Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Bilaspur. He was further treated in Radhey Shaym Ashakt Suvidha Kendra, Amleshwar Raipur (C.G.) and Christian Medical College, Vellore, (Tamil Nadu). According to the disability certificate given by Doctor S.S. Bhatia (Appellant Witness No.3), the Appellant was found in 90% permanent disability. The claim petition filed by the Appellant/Claimant to the tune of Rs.4,71,60,000.00.

(3.) Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their written statement before the Claims Tribunal and denied the averments of the Appellant/Claimant. It was pleaded by them that at the time of accident, Respondent No.1 was holding valid and effective driving license and at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3-Insurance Company, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay any compensation, if any.