H.R.T.C. Vs. SUNAINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award dated 17.7.2013 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -1, Solan, District Solan, H.P. Camp at Nalagarh in MAC Petition No. 24 -S/2 of 2011 whereby a sum of Rs. 11,66,070/ - has been awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1 alongwith costs, pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual payment.

(2.) THAT the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for claiming compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/ - from the appellant and one Sh. Ram Sawroop on account of grievous injuries alleged to have been suffered by her in an accident which is stated to have been caused by respondent No. 2, the driver of bus No. HP -14 -5310 owned by the appellant. It was alleged that on 1.5.2011 the claimant had gone to her parental house and she was coming back to her in -laws house in Village Khaddi Kunihar, in bus No. HP -14 -5310, owned by the appellant and being driven by respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2, being driver of the offending bus was driving it in a rash and negligent manner and when it reached Kunni bridge at about 5.00 P.M. he could not control the bus, as a result of which, it had fallen down in the khud causing injuries to all the passengers including the claimant. It was alleged that she had sustained grievous injuries in her back bone, hand leg etc. and she was taken to Community Health Centre, Kunihar, where first aid was given to her and then she was at once referred to IGMC, Shimla for further treatment. It was alleged that she remained admitted in IGMC, Shimla from 2.5.2011 till 9.6.2011 where she was operated upon and striker mono axial screw, striker blocker and solid rod had been affixed in her body through major operation and she had spent Rs. 7,00,000/ - on her treatment and now she is stated to have suffered permanent disability of 35% qua her whole body.

(3.) THE claim petition filed by the claimant was contested by the appellant and respondent No. 2 by filing separate replies. The appellant admitted the accident to have taken place on 1.5.2011 but had averred that the petitioner was not earning anything as pleaded by her as she was only a house wife with no such income. The amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ - spent by the claimant on her treatment was denied. The appellant has taken specific averment in the reply that an amount of Rs. 10,000/ - had been paid as interim relief to the claimant and an amount of Rs. 1,32,914/ - had been reimbursed to the claimant on account of medical claim and if any compensation is awarded by the Tribunal, then the said amount of Rs. 1,42,914/ - be adjusted in the said compensation.