ANIL KUMAR Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of three first appeals being FAO No.955 of 1996, FAO No.956 of 1996 and FAO No.958 of 1996 as all three appeals have been filed against the common award dated July 31,1995 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short, `the Tribunal').

(2.) The appellants are the injured claimants. They have approached this Court for enhancement of compensation. An accident took place on January 22,1991. There was a head on collision between Bus No.HYU 6691 owned by the Haryana Roadways and truck No.HRD 6715 owned by Om Parkash and driven by Harbans Lal, driver, who also died in the aforesaid accident. The aforesaid truck was insured with National Insurance Company. Anil Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar alias Raju were three persons who were travelling in the bus and received injuries on account of the aforesaid accident. On account of injuries suffered by them, they filed a separate claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. It was specifically pleaded by the aforesaid claimants that driver of truck No.HRD/6715 was driving the aforesaid vehicle rashly and negligently and, therefore, had caused the accident in question. On account of the aforesaid fact, the passengers travelling in the bus, including the claimants, had suffered serious injuries.

(3.) The learned Tribunal, on the basis of evidence available on the record, found it is a fact that the accident in question had indeed taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of Harbans Lal, driver of truck No.HRD/6715. Consequently, the claimants were held entitled to receive compensation. Anil Kumar, claimants claimed that he had received multiple fractures including fracture of right leg, left arm, clavicle bone, shoulder bone and four ribs. He further claimed that his teeth became shaky and his spinal cord was also injured. It was pleaded by him that he was removed from Civil Hospital, Sonepat to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi and he had remained bed ridden for about 3-1/2 months and had spent Rs.1 lac on his treatment. The aforesaid claimant claimed that he was doing business and on account of the aforesaid injuries, he could not attend his business and lost about Rs.80,000/- on account of his absence from business.