SURESH Vs. KAMLESH PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') for enhancement of the sum awarded by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Betul in MVC No. 53/08 vide award dated 15.11.08 whereby his claim regarding the injuries sustained in a vehicular accident has been awarded for the sum of Rs.90377/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on date 27.10.06 respondent No.1 while driving the Jeep bearing registration No. H.R. 010/ 2801 in rash and negligent manner, met an accident with the appellant resultantly he sustained the injuries on different parts of the body, on which he was taken to the Govt. hospital Padar. On medical examination and investigation various fractures were found on his person. As per available evidence, he sustained fractures in his back bone right clavicle bone and ribs along with some other minor fracture and injuries, for which, he remained in the hospital for treatment from 27.10.06 to 1.2.07 and also remained on rest for a long period. Due to such injuries, as per medical certificate (Ex. P/59), he sustained 50% permanent disability in his person. As per further averments of the claim petition, the respondent No.2 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle while the same was insured with respondent No.3. With these averments, the appellant has preferred his claim for compensation of Rs.11,92,000/- along with interest on it.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte while in reply of respondent No.3 insurer, the averments with respect of the accident are denied. It is also denied that the accident was the cause and consequence of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. In fact, the accident took place because of own negligence of the appellant. The claim petition is filed for excessive sum only on imaginary ground. The appellant has not sustained any permanent disability due to injuries sustained in the alleged accident. It is also stated that insured vehicle was plied by respondent No.1 under violation of the terms and condition of the insurance policy hence it is not liable to indemnify the claim. The necessary parties are not impleaded in the claim petition. In such premises, prayer for dismissal of the claim was made.