RAJESH GOEL Vs. BHOOP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this single judgment, I will dispose of three connected appeals i.e. FAO Nos.2538, 3868 and 5015 of 2007, arising out of the same Award dated 02.06.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from FAO No.5015 of 2007.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that Rajesh Goel had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation on account of injuries received in motor vehicle accident. Rajesh Goel had claimed that on 25.02.20004, he along with Daya Nand, resident of Jind was coming from Hisar to Jind after attending the marriage in a car bearing No.HR -31C -2433 owned by respondent No.4 (Mahesh Chand), real brother of the petitioner. It was being driven by respondent No.3 (Ramesh Kumar Jangra). At about 9.30 p.m., he reached near Majra Piyaoo on Jind -Hansi road, then a car bearing No.HRV -81, being driven by respondent No.1 (Bhoop singh) in rash and negligent manner came from opposite side. The car No.HR31C -2433 was also being driven in rash and negligent manner and struck against car No.HRV -81. As a result of accident, petitioner and respondent No.3 received multiple grievous injuries. They were removed to General Hospital, Hansi and then referred to General Hospital, Hisar for further treatment. On the statement of respondent No.3, a criminal case was registered against respondent No.1. It was stated that respondent No.1 had managed to save himself in the collusion with the police, whereas, respondent Nos.1 and 3 both are responsible for causing the accident.

(3.) RESPONDENT No.1 in the written statement had taken the plea that petitioner himself was driving car bearing No.HR -31C -2433. He was driving it negligently. Respondent No.1, driver of car bearing No.HRV -81 has been wrongly impleaded as party, whereas, he has no concern with the said car bearing No.HRV -81 nor he was employed as driver of the said vehicle.