DEEPAK Vs. JITENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded to him vide award dated 21.1.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, 'the Tribunal'), in a sum of Rs. 4,42,600 for his injuries suffered in a roadside accident that took place on 13.7.2009. The case of Deepak, claimant, is as under: On 13.7.2009 at about 1 p.m., Deepak with his friend Satish was going on a motor cycle to Kuldeep Nagar from his house. He was driving the motor cycle while Satish was riding its pillion. After getting petrol from the petrol pump, they were on Shastri turning on G.T. Road. When he was in the process of taking turn towards Kuldeep Nagar and had almost completed the turn, a Verna car bearing registration No. PB 18-D 0014, driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from the side of Ambala Bus Stand. It was driven by Jitender Kumar, respondent No. 1. It hit the motor cycle driven by Deepak Kumar and as a result of this accident, the motor cycle had struck against a cart parked on the left side of the road. Deepak Kumar and his companion fell down on the road and suffered serious injuries. They were taken to the Civil Hospital, Ambala, wherefrom Deepak was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. Deepak Kumar has claimed his income at Rs. 3,300 per month and has claimed Rs. 1,25,000 to have been spent on his treatment. He has also claimed to have suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries suffered in the accident. He has claimed Rs. 15,00,000 as compensation.

(2.) THE respondents have resisted the claim application. The driver and owner, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, have filed a joint written statement and have taken a number of preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the petition, etc. They have denied the very accident as well as involvement of their vehicle in the accident. They have disclosed the name of the insurer of their vehicle, who upon notice appeared through counsel and filed its written statement. It has denied the cause of action, maintainability of the petition and has taken plea of misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It has also denied the very accident to have taken place involving the vehicle in question. It has been pleaded that the car in question was not being driven by a person holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the car at the time of alleged accident.

(3.) PARTIES led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,42,600 to the claimant.