ANIL Vs. RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claim petition bearing No. MACT-14-2012 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed by petitioner/claimant Anil minor son of Rajbir Singh, through his natural guardian and mother-Sumitra widow of Rajbir Singh against respondents i.e. Raju @ Gulshan-driver-cum-owner of Tata Safari bearing registration No.HR-11C-0636 (for short 'the offending vehicle1) and the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Rohtak-insurer of the offending vehicle, whereas, connected petitioner No.MACT-16-2012 has been filed by Tej Ram son of Ram Lal against those very respondents.

(2.) According to the version of claimants, on 25.04.2009, petitioner/claimant Anil was returning from Akhara (wrestling centre) of Village Chhara to his village Beri on a motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-05H-9067 being driven by petitioner/claimant Tej Ram. Anil-claimant was pillion rider on that motorcycle. When the said motorcycle had reached at Dujana Chowk, then the offending vehicle being driven by respondent No.l Raju @ Gulshan at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from Rohtak side and struck against motorcycle of the petitioners/claimants, resulting into multiple injuries to both the riders. They were immediately taken to PGIMS Rohtak by respondent No.l Raju @ Gulshan. The matter was reported to the police and on the basis of statement of petitioner Tej Ram, FIR No.212 dated 29.04.2009, was registered against respondent No.l under Sections 279 and 337 IPC.

(3.) As far as the claim petition brought by minor claimant Anil, he was aged about 14 years at the time of accident. He was continuing his studies and helping his mother in dairy farming and agricultural works and thereby earning Rs.6000/- per month. He remained hospitalized at PGIMS Rohtak for a period of 15 days and his treatment was still undergoing at the time of filing of claim petition. An amount of about Rs.2 lacs has already been paid for treatment, medicines, special diet and attendant charges etc. and much more is required for future treatment; that he has become permanently disabled and cannot undertake any laborious physical work. As such, minor petitioner/claimant asked for grant of compensation Rs.15 lacs to him.