SUMIT KUMAR @ MONU Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the injured claimant against the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri on the ground of insufficiency of the compensation awarded to him for 100% physical disability.

(2.) The brief facts as pleaded by the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal are that the appellant-claimant was employed as a Cleaner on the truck owned by respondent No. 1-Ashok Kumar bearing registration No. HR-58C-2806 on salary of Rs. 6,700/- per month. On the fateful day, the respondent/owner was transporting the plywood from Yamuna Nagar to Mumbai in the said truck and he himself was driving the truck. When the truck reached near Ambika Hotel, it turned turtle and had fallen in the ditches on the road side due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 1. The claimant sustained multiple and grievous injuries. He was taken to Government Hospital, Bhilwara from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. His both legs were amputated and he became 100% disabled. Therefore, the claim petition was filed.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 admitted the factum of the accident but denied the rash and negligent driving on his part. He pleaded that accident had occurred suddenly and unfortunately without any fault on his part. It was pleaded that the claimant was employed as Cleaner on salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month and the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company-respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 did not deny the factum of the insurance but contested the claim petition on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license. It was further pleaded that the vehicle was being plied without fitness certificate and route permit. The Insurance Company also moved an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking permission to contest the petition on the grounds available to the driver and the owner of the truck and the said application was allowed by the Tribunal. Parties led their respective evidence.