MANOJ GAUTAM Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded to him in a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 6.5.2010. The claim made by the appellant-claimant under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") for compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by him in a road side accident that took place on 12.9.2006 is as under:

(2.) The claimant was going to his house situated in South City, Ludhiana on 12.9.2006 riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-10-AZ-4394 after doing his work at Pindi Street, Ludhiana. When he was in front of the Bitumen plant, near Dairy Complex, Haibowal, Ludhiana, Surjit Singh, respondent No. 1, came driving truck bearing registration No. TN- 22-Z-569 from his back side and struck his motorcycle at its back side. As a consequence thereof, he fell down on the road and suffered multiple injuries on his face, right leg, right arm and head. He was taken to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana by one Manjit Saini, who was passing by that place at that time, where he remained admitted from 12.9.2006 to 21.9.2006. He took treatment from Paras Hospital, Gurgaon, Max Hospital, New Delhi and had also undergone physiotherapy with various institutions. He had spent Rs. 4,00,000/- on his treatment. He has claimed that his treatment was still going on. He has further claimed that he was 33 years old at the time of accident and was working as a Medical Representative. According to him, he was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month at that time, out of which, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had been his salary received from his employer and another sum of Rs. 8,000/- had been his commission/incentive. He has claimed that his income has been totally lost and his efficiency to do work has been considerably reduced.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 has denied the maintainability of the claim petition and has claimed the accident to have taken place due to negligence of the claimant himself. According to him, for this reason, he is not entitled to any compensation. It is further averred that the motorcycle had struck against the truck while it was taking turn through divider while coming from the bitumen plant. According to him, the FIR had been falsely registered against him.