KULDEEP Vs. DHARAM VIR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal brought by Kuldeep, the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR -42 -2191, who has been held responsible for causing this accident by his rash and negligent driving of the same. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (for short 'the Tribunal') had assessed a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ - as compensation in favour of Dharam Vir for pecuniary and non -pecuniary loss suffered by him in the accident. The appellant has challenged the findings recorded by learned Tribunal on the question of responsibility of causing the accident. So the facts necessary to be reproduced are as under: - -On 11.02.2004 Dharam Vir, the claimant was going towards village Bhag Khera, Police Station Pillu Khera, District Jind in a three -wheeler to see his parents. When the three -wheeler was near the premises of Police Station Pillu Khera, a motorcycle bearing registration No. HR -42 -2191 driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash, negligent and zigzag manner came from the opposite side and struck against the three -wheeler on its right side. As a result of this accident, the claimant got his leg crushed. The three -wheeler turned turtle in the accident and the right leg of the claimant got crushed under the three -wheeler. The claimant was then taken to Civil Hospital, Pillu Khera where -from he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh and he has alleged that he had spent a lot of amount on his treatment and had suffered loss of income as well.

(2.) KULDEEP , respondent No. 2 had contested the claim petition till the stage of filing the written statement. He had been proceeded against ex -parte thereafter. In his written statement, he denied the accident to have occurred on account of his rash or negligent driving of the motorcycle. He claimed the accident to be an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the three -wheeler. He also claimed that the claimant was sitting on the driver's seat of the three -wheeler in violation of the provisions of law and had contributed to the acts of the accident.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has contended that the statement of the claimant made at the trial, which is relied upon by the Tribunal is contrary to the plea taken by him in the F.I.R. According to him, the FIR was lodged by the claimant himself and the version appearing therein is at cross -current with the version given by him at the trial. According to him, as the statement of the claimant made before the Tribunal is contrary or rather contradictory to the statement of facts appearing in the FIR, the statement of the claimant could not be believed to hold the accident to be an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the appellant. He has read out the contents of the FIR and has submitted that learned Tribunal has mechanically decided the case against the appellant by holding him responsible for this accident.