C J SINGH Vs. GUR RATTAN PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, challenge is to award dated 9.10.1986 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, dismissing the petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the claimant.

(2.) Claimant, C.J. Singh, filed petition under section 110-A of the Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, averring therein that on 12.1.1983 at about 1 p.m. he along with Harvinder Singh was going on motor cycle bearing registration No. CHG 82 from Sector 21 scooter market towards Sector 35-C, Chandigarh. The said motor cycle was being driven by Harvinder Singh and he (claimant) was on the pillion seat. According to the claimant, when they reached near T-junction near the turning of Dev Samaj College, a car bearing registration No. CHG 4641 being driven by respondent No. 1 came at a fast speed and hit against the motor cycle, as a result of which he fell down from the pillion of the motor cycle and sustained injuries, resulting in dislocation of knee, fracture of right thigh, etc. As per claimant, he remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh from 12.1.1983 to 2.2.1983 and suffered permanent disability. In the claim petition, he claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 under different heads.

(3.) Upon notice of the claim petition, respondent No. 1 appeared and filed his written statement alleging therein that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of owner, driver and the insurance company of the motor cycle. He alleged that accident took place due to fault of the driver of motor cycle and that he was driving the same without any licence. He further alleged that there were three persons on the motor cycle and the motorcyclist instead of taking turn to the correct side, took wrong turn to avoid obstructions which were there on the left side of roundabout and resultantly hit his car which was going at a slow speed on its correct side. He stated that he himself had taken the injured to hospital in his car and later on police cancelled the case which had been reported to it, on finding that the motorcyclist was at fault. The respondent No. 2, namely, insurance company, in its written statement alleged that the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant. The alleged injuries and the amount spent on the treatment has been denied. The amount claimed is stated to have been exaggerated and that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.