ANURADHA Vs. BRIJ LAL GOYAL

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 (S.A.S. Nagar), Mohali (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dtd. 16/3/2010 passed in MACT Case No.RT05 dtd. 26/5/2007/26/5/2009 titled Anuradha Vs. Brij Lal Goyal and others on account of injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 27/3/2005.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts 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 'M.V. Act') on the averments that on 27/3/2005 she was going to Panchkula as pillion rider on scooter bearing registration No.CH-01W-5962 driven by her sister Pooja. When they were crossing Sector 45- 46 roundabout, Santro Car bearing registration No.HR-09-F-0047, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, came from opposite direction on wrong side driven by respondent No.1 at a very high speed, rashly and negligently without blowing horn and struck against their scooter due to which she suffered multiple injuries including fracture on right leg. DDR No.26 dtd. 28/3/2005 was registered in Police Post Burail, Chandigarh regarding the accident.

(3.) The appellant further averred in the petition that after the accident she was taken to Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh where she remained admitted from 27/3/2005 to 30/3/2005. She was operated upon and plates were inserted in her right leg. She remained on bed for three months and had spent more than Rs.50,000.00 on her treatment. She would be again operated upon in future for removing the plates from her right leg on which huge amount is likely to be spent. She was working as staff nurse and getting a salary of Rs.2,000.00 per month and was earning Rs.1,500.00 per month from other sources. Due to the injuries suffered she became permanently disabled and is unable to walk properly. The appellant accordingly sought award of compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs with costs and interest against respondents No.1 to 3.