KASHMIR SINGH Vs. SITENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation as allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that an accident took place on 02.02.2003 when a vehicle, namely a Tata sumo bearing registration No. HR-06D-7178 being driven by Sitender Kumar struck against motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-06H-2400 driven by Kashmir Singh. On account of the accident, the appellant Kashmir Singh suffered injuries, which led to the filing of a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was alleged that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle described as TATA sumo. A sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was claimed as compensation on account of treatment expenses, pain and suffering. The petition was contested by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 being the owner and driver, who denied the accident in question stating false implication in the case. Respondent No. 3 the Insurance Company filed a separate written statement. In the preliminary objection, it was stated that the vehicle was being driven in contravention to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Thereafter, the tribunal framed the issues and recorded evidence. In order to prove his case, the claimant examined Dr. Manish Jha as PW-1, Dr. Raghbir Singh as PW-3 and himself appeared in the witness box as PW-4 and closed his evidence. Whereas, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 tendered documents and closed their evidence. The Insurance Company did not produce any documentary evidence other than getting the statement of Sh. N.R. Pruthi, Assistant Regional Manager as RW 3.

(3.) The Tribunal by taking into account the statement of the claimant who stepped into the witness box as PW-4 held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, the driver. The driver did not step into the witness box to deny the factum of the accident, nor was any evidence led to the effect that there was false implication. On the question of compensation the tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards disability while further awarding Rs. 5000/- on account of pain and suffering thereby totalling a sum of Rs. 35,000/- to be paid as compensation.