DARMIYAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 31.12.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in MACT No. 12/2002, Darmiyan Singh versus Union of India.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts, as narrated in the claim petition, are that on 24.2.1998 SSB Truck No. UP -08 -1949 met with an accident near Rampur (UP) during the course of performance of Lok Sabha election duty. In the said accident, backbone of claimant was badly damaged and he became 100% physically disabled. It has also been alleged that the said accident had occurred on account of rash and negligence of driver. After the accident claimant remained admitted w.e.f. 24.2.1998 to 1.2.1999 in various hospitals for his treatment and thereafter he was declared unfit for the service. The claimant was 30 years of age at the time of accident and he was getting salary of Rs.6000/ - per month. It has further been alleged that about Rs. Two Lacs was spent on the treatment of claimant and therefore the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/ - as compensation against opposite party under different heads.

(3.) OPPOSITE party/Union of India contested the claim petition and filed its written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that on the date of alleged accident claimant was employed in SSB and he was travelling in departmental vehicle on official duty. It has also been stated that all the passengers travelling in vehicle were officials of SSB and under this circumstance claim petition of the claimant is barred by principle of estoppel and acquiescence and the same is not maintainable before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for any compensation. It has further been stated that on the date of accident vehicle in question was being plied by its driver very carefully and slowly. The plea taken by claimant with regard to rash and negligence of the driver is totally wrong. It is also wrong to say that a sum of Rs. Two Lacs was spent on the treatment of claimant, rather entire expenses over medical treatment of claimant was borne by department. It has also been stated that after finding the claimant unfit for service a sum of Rs.1275/ - per month as pension and other dearness allowance due on it were sanctioned to the claimant and besides this wife and brother of the claimant have been given appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, the claim petition filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed.