VIRENDER WALIA Vs. GURMIT SINGH@ MEENA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-injured against the award of Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Chandigarh whereby an amount of Rs.4,48,000/- was awarded to him on account of the injury suffered by him. The claim in the appeal is that the compensation award is grossly inadequate and the same deserves to be enhanced.

(2.) The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that on 11.08.1996 the claimant and his son were travelling in car bearing registration No.CH-01-L0050. The claimant-Dr. Virender Walia was on the wheel, while his sonVikram Walia was sitting by his side. When they reached near Ambala Cantt., a Tanker bearing registration No. CHW-6856, coming from the opposite side, with a fast speed and being driven in a negligent manner, dashed against the car of the claimant; by coming on the wrong side of the road. As a result, the accident happened. The claimant and his son suffered injuries. An FIR No.382 dated 12.08.1996 was also registered regarding this accident. It was claimed that the claimant was 47 years of age at that time and he was a employed as a Medical Officer in the Punjab Civil Medical Services, and was drawing Rs.12,000/- per month as salary. It was further pleaded that in the accident he has suffered serious injuries, including multiple fractures on his right thigh, right fore-arm and left knee and several fractures, on other parts of the body. The claimant had to undergo surgeries several times. Implants were put inside the body of the claimant, besides this, bone grafting was also done. Therefore, it was claimed that he had spent Rs.40,000/- on his treatment. It was further claimed that due to the multiple serious injuries, he suffered permanent impairment and cannot perform his duty as Medical Officer property. Therefore, the claim petition was filed claiming Rs. 10 lac as compensation.

(3.) The claim petition was contested by respondents No.2 and 3. Respondent No.1-driver did not put appearance; so he was proceeded exparte. The contesting respondents denied that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending tanker. All other particulars were also denied. The Insurance Company-respondent No.3 had also contested the claim petition. They also denied the contents of the claim petition.