KAILASH YADAV Vs. SAHIL WALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant-injured (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant') has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dtd. 4/5/2012 passed in MACT Case No.423 of 6/10/2009 titled Kailash Yadav Vs. Sahil Walia and others on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 9/6/2009.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts which are relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant filed claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V. Act') on the averments that on 9/6/2009 at about 07:30 P.M., when the appellant was crossing the road in front of Hari Mandir, Sector-26, Chandigarh and was going towards Rickshaw Stand of Sector-26, Chandigarh on foot, Car bearing registration No.CH- 23-T-1434 owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 came from the side of Sector-7, Chandigarh driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at fast speed and struck against him due to which he suffered multiple injuries. FIR No.138 dtd. 12/6/2009 under Ss. 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Sec. -26, Chandigarh. The appellant was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.4,000.00 per month by working as rickshaw puller. Due to the accident he became permanently disabled. The appellant accordingly sought award of compensation of Rs.15,00,000.00 with costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum against respondents No.1 to 3.

(3.) The petition was contested by the respondents in terms of their respective written statements. In their joint written statement respondents No.1 and 2 pleaded that the accident took place due to own negligence of the appellant and the Car was insured with respondent No.3. In its written statement respondent No.3 took objections as to respondent No.1-driver not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and respondent No.2-owner having committed breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Respondent No.3 also controverted the material averments made in the petition and denied its liability.