BIRBAL SINGLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The injured-claimant (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.10.2004 passed in MACT Case No.192 of 2001 titled Birbal Singla Vs. State of Haryana and others on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 26.09.2000.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts which are relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant filed claim petition under Section 166/140/141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V. Act') on the averments that on 26.09.2000 at about 10.00 a.m., he boarded bus bearing registration No.HR-46A-1228 for going from Kaithal to Pehowa. The bus was being driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner. When the bus reached near Village Gumthala Garhu the same dashed against a tree due to which his head struck against the iron pipe of his front seat and he suffered multiple grievous injuries on his head as well as on left eye. FIR No.281 dated 19.10.2000 was registered under Sections 279, and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Police Station, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra regarding the accident. The appellant being aged 41 years was earning Rs.35,000/- per month by working as Manager in M/s Saraswati Tractors Corporation, Kaithal Road, Pehowa and Chief Executive in M/s Manchanda Filling Station, Pehowa. After the accident, he was admitted in Amar Hospital, Patiala, where he remained admitted till 03.10.2000. Thereafter he was shifted to P.G.I. Chandigarh where he remained admitted from 05.10.2000 to 14.10.2000. He had lost 75% vision in his left eye and was feeling pain in his head continuously and was unable to do any work. He spent amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on his medical treatment. The appellant accordingly sought award of compensation of Rs.1,01,40,000/- with costs and interest against the respondents No.1 and 2-owners, respondent No.3-driver and respondent No.4-insurer jointly and severally.

(3.) The petition was contested by the respondents. In their joint written statement respondents No.1 and 2 denied the accident in question for want of knowledge and pleaded that registration of FIR after 25 days of the accident by itself proved falsity of the present claim petition. Respondents No.1 and 2 denied their liability while pleading that the offending bus was insured with respondent No.4.