RAKESH Vs. RAKESH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, as awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short 'the Tribunal') vide its award dated 5.4.2010. Brief facts as disclosed in the claim petition are that on 10.01.2008 in the area of Dadri road near Anand Brothers Petrol Pump, Bhiwani a vehicular accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata 407 bearing registration No.HR-39A-3110 (herein for short 'the offending vehicle'), by respondent No.1. Appellant-Rakesh along with Suraj and Anil had hired the offending vehicle from Bhiwani in order to purchase sugarcane from Mohindergarh Mandi. As the offending vehicle reached near Anand Brothers Petrol Pump, Respondent No.1 lost control of the vehicle and it turned turtle. All the persons travelling in the vehicle suffered injuries due to this and they were shifted to G.H Bhiwani for treatment. From there the Appellant was referred to PGIMS Rohtak where he remained admitted from 11.1.2008 to 14.1.2008. The accident was alleged to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. FIR regarding the accident was also registered.

(2.) On a claim petition having been filed by the Appellant, the Tribunal concluded that the accident resulting in the injuries to the claimant had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1000.00 towards 'purchase of medicines', Rs.4000.00 for 'Hospitalization' and Rs.2000.00 towards 'pain and suffering, special diet, and transportation' were also awarded. In all, compensation of Rs.7000.00 was awarded.

(3.) The Ld. Tribunal held that the compensation was recoverable only from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The insurance company was exonerated holding that as the offending vehicle was insured as a Goods Carrying Commercial Vehicle and not as a Passenger carrying vehicle and as there were no goods lying in the vehicle at the time of the accident, the insurance company could not be held to be liable. Assailing the award of the Tribunal, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued: