BHIM SINGH Vs. SUKHBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the claimant's appeal filed against the dismissal of his claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind vide order dated 7.8.1990 for the grant of compensation of Rs. 10,000 in respect of injuries suffered by him in the accident as well as damage caused to his motor-cycle No. HRV-1208.

(2.) IN brief the facts of the case are that on 17.10.1988, the appellant-Bhim Singh was going to his home in Urban Estate, Jind on his motor-cycle bearing No. HRV-1208 at about 8.00 p.m. after selling his milk and when he was crossing Pindara Chowk on Jind-Gohana Road near Rani Talab, one auto-rickshaw No. HYT-1624 driven by Sukhbir Singh-respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction i.e. from general bus stand, Jind and the said auto rickshaw collided against the motor-cycle of the petitioner. At the relevant time, the claimant-appellant was going on the correct side of the road whereas auto rickshaw has caused the accident by coming from the wrong side. In order to avoid the accident, the appellant took his motor-cycle on Kacha portion of the road but the accident could not be avoided. Due to the impact, the appellant fell down on the ground and sustained multiple injuries on his right leg and on back side and his motor-cycle was completely damaged and the empty milk drums were also broken or damaged. After causing the accident, Sukhbir Singh, the driver of the auto rickshaw slipped away from the spot leaving behind his auto-rickshaw. The injured-appellant was removed by Ram Mehar and Raju to the General Hospital, Jind for treatment. He was admitted in the hospital where he was medico legally examined. A case FIR No. 289 was registered in the Police Station on that very day against respondent No. 1 under Sections 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The claimant disclosed that on the date of accident his monthly income was Rs. 1,200 and he had spent Rs. 500 on his treatment. He could not attend to his business of selling milk for ten days. He had to spend a sum of Rs. 2,833.18 on the repair of his motor-cycle and he had to purchase new drums for a sum of Rs. 345. In this way, he claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,000.

(3.) UPON notice, respondent No. 1 Sukhbir Singh filed his written statement. It was pleaded by him that the motor-cycle was being used for a purpose other than riding so the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation. The driver, owner and insurer of the motor-cycle had not been impleaded as a party to the petition so the petition is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of the necessary party. The appellant-claimant himself is responsible for causing this accident, therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation.