PRITAM SINGH Vs. BALJEET AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal is to the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, whereby dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant as not maintainable. The facts, as are evident from the record, are that Pritam Singh, who was riding motorcycle bearing No. HR-14/7917 for attending to his duty in ITI Meham, met with an accident with vehicle bearing No. HR-66/4996 driven by Baljeet allegedly in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, Pritam Singh suffered multiple injuries on head and other parts of the body. He became unconscious and was admitted in hospital. The claim petition was filed by his wife on 13.08.2010 specifically pleading therein that Pritam Singh-her husband was still in Coma and under treatment. The same was dismissed by learned Tribunal holding that the authorization from the claimant has not been produced on record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the injured person was none else than the husband of the person, who had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, as the injured was in Coma. Learned Tribunal should not have dismissed the claim petition on the hypertechnical plea of the authorization not being there because in the present case, the injured was not in a position to give any authorization. In the absence thereof, it will not be possible for him to get the compensation as lacs of rupees are being spent on his treatment, for which the wife has no means.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the affidavit filed by the wife of the injured, it was specifically stated that her husband was in Coma and as such, she is representing him. No material was brought on record by the respondents in her cross-examination to show that the husband of the appellant was not in Coma. Besides that, no independent evidence was led by them to show that husband of the appellant was capable of giving any attorney or filing the claim petition in the Court himself. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to document Ex. P-2-Disability Certificate issued by Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS Rohtak dated 15.04.2011, wherein Board of Doctors had opined that the injured was 100% permanently disabled. According to said Disability Certificate, the injured suffered:--