STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANOTHER Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGEL FAST TRACK COURT-VII, DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed against the award dated 05 -01 -2005 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge / Vllth F.T.C., Dehradun (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 245/ 2003, Roshan Lal Joshi Vs. Chief Project Director and another whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,96,400/ - as compensation against the opposite parties, i.e., Chief Project Director Watershed Management and Manoj Kumar driver jointly and severally.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/ - alleging therein that on 04 -09 -2003 claimant Roshan Lal Joshi was going on his motorcycle from Doiwala to Dehradun. When he reached near Mianwala, a Jeep No. UA -07 /0818 which was coming from opposite direction and being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed the motor cycle resulting in fracture of the leg of the claimant. It was alleged that the injured was driving the motor cycle in slow speed in his side. Thereafter, the injured was admitted to Johri Hospital, Haridwar Road, Dehradun and later on shifted to Harish Kohli Hospital, Dehradun. It was alleged that the injured was 33 years of age at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 6,000/ - per month. It was alleged that due to the injuries sustained by the injured he had spent Rs. 1,00,000/ - towards medical expenses and became disabled. Thus, the claimant -injured had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal.

(3.) THE opposite parties contested the claim petition and filed separate written statements. The opposite party No.1 Chief Project Director pleaded that the driver of the Jeep was not rash and negligent rather the motor cyclist himself was rash and negligent in driving. The opposite party NO.2 driver of the jeep in his written statement pleaded that the motor cyclist was rash and negligent and the motor cyclist dashed the stationed jeep due to which he sustained the injuries. As such, the claimant / injured was not entitled to any compensation.