VIRINDER KUMAR PANDIT Vs. GOVIND RICE FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIRINDER Kumar Pandit, a Lecturer of D. A. V. College, Chandigarh, suffered injuries while involved in an accident caused by Harbhajan Singh respondent, who was driving car No. PAP 911. On, the claim petiton of the appellant Virinder Kumar Pandit, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,04,000/- with 12 per cent interest from date of filing of the claim petition till realisation The appellant claims enhancement of compensation in this appeal whereas in the cross objections filed by owner of the car, finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence of the driver of the car is disputed as well as quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal.

(2.) THE accident took place on June 5, 1986 at about 10 A. M. at the round about which is in front of petrol pump in Sector 15. Virinder Kumar Pandit appellant was going from the side of Sector 11 and he was to go towards Sector 15 after crossing the double road in between. He was on a cycle. After crossing the first road, he reached the round about which was in between the two roads. He stopped at the round about. Car No. PAP 911 driven by Harbhajan Singh respondent came at a very rash and negligent speed from the side of Sector 16. The driver of the car lost control with the result the car hit left leg of the claimaint. With this accident, the claimant suffered injuries on his leg which was fractured. Alter hitting, Harbhajan Singh respondent speeded his car and tried to run away. In the meantime, Flying Squad of the Police reached there. They chased Car No. PAP 911 and caught held of its driver, Harbhajan Singh The police removed the claimant to the P. G. I. in the same car and got him admitted. The claimant claimed Rs. 5,00,0 (0/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum According to him, the accident took place entirely on account of excessive speed and careless and negligent driving of the car. The nature of the injuries suffered was also mentioned in the claim petition. The owner and driver of the car contested the claim denying the allegations of the claimant regarding the manner of the accident. According to them, the accident took place suddenly and the claimant had come on the road all of a sudden without observing the traffic rules. They further pleaded that the accident occurred on account of a third person who came on the road running and in order to avoid him, the car hit the claimant. It was denied that the driver of the car tried to escape from the spot. The car was insured with National Insurance Company, who was also impleaded as a respondent. They pleaded that the accident took place entirely due to the negligence of the claimant himself. Unmindful of the traffic rules, the claimant came on the road from the side and the accident occurred. It was further pleaded that the driver of the vehicle was neither acting in the course of employment nor he was possessed of a valid driving licence. The claimant refuted the allegations of the respondents in the replication while reiterating his stand as given in the petition. The following issues were framed :-"whether Virinder Kumar claimant sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of car No. PAP-911 by respondent No. 1 ? OPP. 2. To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to recover ? If so, from whom ? OPP.

(3.) RELIEF. 3. After considering the evidence produced in the case, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimant holding that he suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of car aforesaid which was driven by Harbhajan Singh driver. Under issue No. 2, as already stated above, the Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 1,04,000/- as compensation