ATUL KUMAR BHAGAT Vs. VINOD KUMAR KHOLIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dtd. 20/4/2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal / Addl. District Judge, Nainital, in M.A.C.P. No. 112 of 2008, dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that, on 22/4/2008, at about 09:20 a.m., the appellant was going by his motorcycle to attend to his duties in Nainital. A vehicle (Tavera No. UA 04D 0345), being driven rash and negligently by its driver towards Bhowali, dashed the appellant's motorcycle near Jokhiya while overtaking. Due to this accident, the appellant sustained serious injuries and became unconscious. The appellant was taken to B.D. Pandey Hospital, Nainital, by people, who had gathered at the place of accident. After giving initial treatment, the appellant was referred to Sai Hospital, Haldwani, due to his serious condition. There, the appellant's right hand was operated. The appellant was also informed that he has to undergo one more operation in future, which is expected to cost around Rs.1,00,000.00. The appellant had already incurred expenses of Rs.1,00,000.00 in his treatment. Due to the accident, the appellant has become completely handicapped. The appellant was working in Zoological Garden, Nainital, as a Computer Operator on contractual basis and was getting a monthly salary of Rs.6,000.00. In addition, the appellant was also earning Rs.5,000.00per month from the work of Computer Hardware and Software. In this way, the appellant was having a total income of Rs.11,000.00 per month. On the basis of these facts, the appellant has claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000.00 from the opposite parties, along with interest at the rate of 9%.

(3.) Opposite party No. 1 (Sri Vinod Kumar Kholiya), who is the owner of the offending vehicle, filed his written statement. In the written statement, it was, inter alia, stated that the appellant has not given any description in his claim petition regarding the number or the insurance of the motorcycle, of which the appellant claims to be the owner. On this ground, the claim petition filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed being unclear and incomplete. It was further stated that no accident had taken place involving the vehicle of the opposite party No. 1 bearing No. UA 04D 0345. The appellant had not given any written or oral information to the concerned Police Station in this regard. The appellant has impleaded opposite party No. 1 as a party to the claim petition merely to fetch money on the basis of a concocted story. The vehicle in question is insured with the National Insurance Company.