RANJEET Vs. KAILASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul vide which the claim petition filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by the claimant in a road accident, was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 16.8.1995 claimant Ranjeet had boarded bus No. RJ-18-0152 from his village Nimbhi for going to Mahendergarh. Badlu Ram son of Mahada Ram, Dinesh and other co-villagers also boarded the said bus. The said bus was driven by respondent No. 1 Kailash, in a rash and negligent manner and when it had reached at the entrance gate of Bus Stand, Mahendergarh, several passengers started unboarding the bus. The claimant also unboarded the bus and went on the roof of the bus to pick up his luggage. When the claimant was bringing his luggage from the roof of the bus to the ground, the driver of the bus started driving the bus all of a sudden at a very fast speed, on account of which, the claimant fell down on the ground and suffered injuries. He was removed from the spot and was got admitted in Community Health Centre, Mahendergarh for treatment. Due to the serious injuries suffered by the claimant, the doctor referred him to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, but instead of going to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, the claimant went to the Sawai Man Singh Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, where he remained under treatment as an indoor patient w.e.f. 18.8.1995 to 18.10.1995 and thereafter from 18.11.1995 to 1.12.1995 and then from 22.1.1996 to 17.2.1996. It was further pleaded that on 22.4.1996, the claimant had gone to SMS Hospital, Jaipur for his check up. He was also treated at MCH, Rohtak, where he remained admitted from 9.7.1997 to 27.8.1997. It was also claimed that he had become permanently disabled in this accident. It was also claimed by the claimant that as he had become unconscious in the accident the doctor in connivance with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the police did not prepare his MLR nor any FIR was recorded, rather a DDR was recorded showing this accident as a chance accident. The claimant was a student of 10+2 class and he was helping his father in the job of making shoes from which he was earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. The age of the claimant at the time of accident was 24 years. On these allegations an amount of Rs. eight lacs was claimed including a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards treatment.

(3.) AFTER filing of replication, the following were framed :-