JAI RAM Vs. PUNEET PATIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the owner of vehicle involved in the accident. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Puneet Patial alias Vinay was riding his scooty HP-22A-6889 from his native village Mattan Sidh to Bhota side on National Highway No. 88, Hamirpur-Shimla Road. At around 5.10 P.M. when he reached near village Bheera, car of the appellant herein, struck the scooty resulting in serious injuries to the claimant who was hospitalized and treated in the Regional Hospital, Hamirpur and referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla; considering that his injury was serious, he was referred to the PGI, Chandigarh, where his right arm was amputated, resulting in 85% permanent disability. Case FIR No. 153/2009, dated 16th May, 2009 was registered against the appellant under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code. On the pleadings of the parties, five issues were settled. The respondents contested the claim on the ground of maintainability and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Adverting to these issues which were settled as issue Nos. 3 and 4, the Tribunal holds, "No evidence has been adduced on these issues by the respondent No. 1. So, both these issues are answered against the said respondent for want of evidence."

(2.) On the first settled issue as to whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the car by Narinder Singh alias Sanju, driver of the car (respondent No. 3 before the learned Tribunal below). The Tribunal holds, on the basis of the FIR Ex. PW-1/A, proved by PW-1 Vijay Parkash, that PW-7 Puneet Patial, petitioner in the present case, who has given a graphic description of the accident stating that on the fateful day when he was travelling from Mattan Sidh to Bhota and had reached near Bheera, car No. HP-32-1243, being driven on the wrong side of the road at a fast and reckless speed, struck the scooty on which he was traveling as a result he fell down and sustained serious injuries, his right arm was crushed, he sustained injuries on the other parts of his body and was bleeding profusely. He was rushed to the Regional Hospital at Hamirpur from where he was referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, which in turn again referred him to PGI, Chandigarh, where his right arm was amputated. He states that a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was spent on his treatment, He had a bright carrier as evidenced by Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-7/B. He wanted to join the Indian Army, but obviously because of the nature of the injuries suffered by him, he was rejected as being physically unfit as proved by Ex. PW-7/ D, which was the medical examination held for recruits to the Indian Army. The Tribunal concludes on this evidence that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent acts of the driver of the offending vehicle.

(3.) Pw-8, Shamsher Singh states that he is a driver with bus No. HP-67-0246. He was an eye witness to the accident. He states that he was going from his house towards Bheera Bazar and saw the accident, which was caused by the rash and negligent act of the driver of maruti car No. HP-32-1243 which dashed into the scooty. He says that it was respondent No. 3 driver who is responsible for the accident.