AMARJIT SINGH Vs. RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by injured - Amarjit Singh praying for enhancement of compensation awarded to him by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 01.06.1999.

(2.) AS per the claim petition, appellant aged 25 years and recently married was plying a truck owned by his father earning Rs. 4000 -5000/ - per month. It is pleaded that the appellant was proceeding to Sirsa from Karnal on 01.06.1999 while driving truck No. HR -20/6933 after loading sand. He was accompanied by Kulwant Singh son of Jagdish Singh working as a Cleaner. The appellant was driving his truck on the correct left side of the road at a moderate speed while observing all traffic rules. When they reached near village Surewala at about 6.00 a.m., a bus of the Haryana Roadways bearing registration No. HR -39/4951 approached from the opposite direction. It was driven by its driver, respondent - Rajinder Singh, who attempted to overtake another private bus in a rash, negligent and reckless manner. As a result thereof, the bus directly struck against the truck driven by the appellant. The appellant suffered grievous injuries and had to take treatment at various hospitals. He received injuries on the head, left leg, right thigh, developed fat -embolism on account of injuries on the left thigh resulting in a breathing problem. He was initially taken to Civil Hospital, Uklana, thereafter to General Hospital, Hisar and then to Civil Hospital, Sirsa. He was admitted at CMC Ludhiana for 35/36 days. A rod was inserted in his right thigh which was ultimately removed on 16.08.2000. He remained admitted at CMC, Ludhiana from 03.06.1999 to 11.06.1999 as a patient in the Intensive Care Unit and thereafter was admitted to the ward till 05.07.1999 when he was discharged. A sum of Rs. 8 lakhs alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum was claimed as compensation by the appellant.

(3.) THE claim was resisted by the respondents while pleading that the bus was not driven in a rash and negligent manner and the accident in question was caused due to fault on the part of the appellant himself. A separate written statement was not filed by the respondent -driver, who adopted the written statement filed by the other respondents.