AMIT KOHLI Vs. U.O.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMIT Kohli son of Shri Girdhari Lal (one of the injured) has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the award dated 8.5.1986, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, who awarded a sum of Rs. 86,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 13.1.1985, at about 11.30 A.M., the appellant and his companion Ashok Kumar were going on a motor-cycle No. CHD-9101 to Surajpur. The motor-cycle was being driven by the appellant and Ashok Kumar was sitting on the pillion seat. When they reached near the Police Station, Chandimandir, a 3-Ton military truck No. T-77 D-26754-N was going ahead of the motor-cycle. The appellant blew the horn and he wanted to overtake the truck. However, the driver of the truck without giving any signal, indication or horn, suddenly turned the truck towards right side, as a result of which, the right bumper of the truck hit the motor-cycle and both the occupant were thrown and both of them received injuries. As per the appellant, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck; namely Amar Singh. The appellant was a young boy of 20 years of age and he was working as a Clerk with the Punjab Small Industries Export Corporation and was drawing Rs. 750/- per month. He received extensive injuries and fracture on the left foot, left arm, left hand, left leg and other parts of the body. He remained under treatment at the P.G.I., Chandigarh. According to the appellant, he became incapacitated for whole of his life and has already spent Rs. 10,000/- on his treatment. He remained confined to bed for sufficiently long time and was unable to pursue his studies and job. His motor-cycle was also damaged and he claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs.

(3.) A joint trial was conducted of both the claim petitions. Written statement was filed by the Govt. of India and it denied the allegations. According to the Govt., the claim of the appellant was highly exaggerated. The Govt. came with the stand that on 13.1.1985, respondent No. 2 was driving the military truck in question and he was returning after training drive. The driver gave the signal through the light indicator as also by his right hand and slowed the vehicle in order to turn to his right to his Unit. The driver of the motor cycle, i.e. the appellant, ignored the signal and drove the motor-cycle in a rash and negligent manner. Finding that the truck was turning, the appellant applied the brakes of the motor-cycle suddenly and it became difficult for him to control the motor-cycle. The motor-cycle toppled down and the occupants fell and received minor injuries. There was no contact between the motor-cycle and the truck. The accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the driver of the motor-cycle. Other objections were also taken by the Union of India that the claim petition is not legally maintainable against the Union of India because the military vehicle was on sovereign duty.