UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. INDER RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the Insurance company being aggrieved of award dated 13.02.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Tribunal'). Cross- objections have been filed by respondent No.1-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that, the claimant/respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him. It is pleaded in the claim petition that on 24.06.2012 the claimant was going from village Mathana to Pipli while driving his three-wheeler at a moderate speed on the correct side of the road. When he reached a little ahead of village Bir Mathana, a car bearing registration No.HR-

(2.) K-3181 which was being driven at a fast speed, came from the opposite direction on the wrong side of the road and struck against the three-wheeler. As a result thereof, the claimant received serious injuries and was taken to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra. Thereafter, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh. FIR No.188 dated 27.06.2012, under Sections 279 / 337 IPC was lodged against the driver of the offending car. Compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- was thus prayed for. Respondent-driver as well as the appellant-Insurance company took a categoric stand that no such accident had taken place on 24.06.2012 and a false claim petition was filed by the claimant in order to extract money. The amount spent by the claimant on his treatment was also denied. 2. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties:-

(3.) Learned Tribunal on considering the evidence on record concluded that the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of car bearing registration No.HR-02K-3181 by respondent-Kanwerpal. While noting that the claimant suffered 67% disability, which included physical/mental disability, he was considered to be a skilled labourer and income of the claimant was assessed as Rs.8,000/- per month by the learned Tribunal. A total sum of Rs.17,32,000/- was awarded, which is detailed as hereunder:-