SANTOSH Vs. SURENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the claimant for modification/enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 10.11.2014 on the ground that less compensation has been granted on account of loss of income during treatment, whereas, the claimant-injured remained admitted in the hospital for a period of six months. It is also prayed that neither attendant charges have been awarded nor any amount has been paid towards special diet, transportation, pain and suffering and even the interest awarded is also very less.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present appeal are that on 8.9.2011, the claimant-appellant Smt. Santosh along with her daughters, namely, Sunita, Vidya Devi and Bishan Devi was returning to her village Mohidinpur, in a three-wheeler bearing registration No. HR-45- 6449, which was being driven in a very rash and negligent manner, got struck with a truck coming from the opposite direction and resultantly the claimant received multiple and grievous injuries. She was admitted in Civil Hospital, Karnal by one Ramesh Kumar and regained consciousness after two days i.e. 10.9.2011. On the same day, FIR No. 237 under Sections 279 and 338 Penal Code was registered on her statement at Police Station Kunjpura against driver of the offending vehicle. In the claim petition, the complainant-appellant pleaded that she was 45 years of age. Her monthly income was Rs. 12000.00 per month and she had spent Rs. 2,00,000.00 on her treatment.

(3.) The claim petition was contested by the respondents on the ground that the claim petition was not maintainable as the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver. The driver of the three-wheeler had been falsely implicated. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company also contested the claim petition but inspite of availing many opportunities, no written statement was filed and ultimately the defence of Insurance Company was struck off under Sec. 35 B of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908. None appeared for respondent No.3-Insurance Company and it was proceeded ex parte.