MAHENDER SINGH Vs. DEV DUTT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed against the impugned Award dated 16.03.2011, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short 'the Tribunal'), for enhancement of compensation under the provisions of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') on account of 4% Permanent Disability suffered by the appellant.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 18.01.2009, appellant-Mahender Singh, age 48 years, who was working as Chowkidar-cum-Motor Operator in the Public Health Department and getting monthly salary of ' 12,000/-, going on bicycle from Village Bhushan Kalan to Village Kadipuri for attending his duties. When he reached at the outer area of Village Bhushan Kalan, a Pick-Up vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-02-IG-0412 (for short 'the offending vehicle'), being driven by respondent No.1-Dev Dutt in a very rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came from the opposite side. On seeing the offending vehicle, appellant turned his bicycle towards katcha path (berm) of the road, but offending vehicle hit him. As a result thereof, appellant suffered serious injuries on various parts of his body including head, forehead, eyes, face & chin and five of his ribs were got fractured as detailed in the MLR/X-rays report/Medical Record. Thereafter, he was taken to General Hospital, Narnaul and from where, referred to Kailash Hospital, Behror, District Alwar (Rajasthan) and remained admitted there w.e.f. 18.01.2009 to 30.01.2009. His treatment continued as an outdoor patient and he had undergone various operations on account of the injuries suffered by him. As a result thereof, appellant remained without pay, who was the only earning member in the family and his future has become dark. An amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- is alleged to have spent for treatment and which is still going on.

(3.) In response to the claim petition, respondent Nos.1 and 2 (driver and owner respectively) filed their joint reply and denied the claim of the appellant and submitted that no accident had taken place with the offending vehicle. Further submitted that respondent No.1-driver was having a valid driving license and the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3/Insurance Company and as such, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not liable for any compensation. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed separate reply and, inter alia, submitted that respondent No.1-driver was not having a valid driving license at the time of alleged accident and as such, he has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The factum of age, occupation and monthly income of the appellant was also denied.