DES RAJ Vs. SUDARSHAN KUMAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation. Des Raj, the claimant met with an accident on 25.12.2004 and suffered injuries therein. He had brought a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur ( for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 04.03.2010 has allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs. 69,471/- against respondents No.1 and 2 only and dismissed the claim petition against the insurer.

(2.) In the accident, Des Raj, the claimant suffered multiple injuries. He was taken by the driver of the offending vehicle to Sehgal Hospital, Pathankot. He was then shifted to Military Hospital, Jalandhar on 26.12.2004 and he was discharged therefrom on 22.02.2005. Surgery was performed on the left leg of the claimant at Military Hospital, Jalandhar. Another surgery thereon was performed at CMC Hospital, Jalandhar. Last surgery on the left leg was performed at CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. The claimant remained admitted at Civil Hospital, Dasuya also for a period of 16 days as he suffered pain. He spent a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on his treatment. He has remained bedridden for a period of nine months and suffered a loss of Rs. 1,00,000/-. He has claimed that he was working as a shopkeeper and was earning Rs. 5000/- per month.

(3.) Respondent No.1 has been proceeded against ex-parte. Respondents no.2 and 3 have resisted the claim petition. They have denied the averments of the claimant regarding his injuries, treatment and expenses incurred therein. He is denied to deserve any amount as compensation. The insurance company denied in addition thereto the insurance of the vehicle with it. It is claimed that the insured in collusion with the officials of Kangra Central Cooperative Bank, Indora got the ante-dated cover note issued on 28.12.2004 after the alleged accident. According to it, there are additions and alterations in the record of the bank. The document is, therefore, claimed to be a voidable document and the insurance company has repudiated the said contract. Learned Tribunal has found Ex.A-42 as the document on the record showing 50% disability suffered by the claimant. He also noticed another document Mark A issued by the same authority showing the claimant to have suffered temporary disability to the extent of 40%. Finding no explanation for the two documents making contrary observations, no amount was assessed as compensation for the disability. However, a sum of Rs. 39,471/- was found to be the amount spent in the treatment of the claimant, to which a sum of Rs. 5000/- for expenses on attendant, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering and a sum of Rs. 5000/- for expenses on special diet had been added and consequently, a sum of Rs. 69,471/- has been allowed as compensation.