BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. ARVIND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( for short "MV Act") against the award dtd. 2/6/2014, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in MAC Petition No. 86-S/2 of 2012, with a prayer to modify the impugned award by enhancing the amount of compensation.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the petitioner filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the MV Act before the Tribunal below, seeking compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor of vehicle accident. As per the petitioner, on 25/5/2010 respondent No.1-Arvind Sharma, who was driving the car bearing registration rt No.HP-14-9091 a rash and negligent manner and on the wrong side of the road and around 12.30. p.m. at place Kumarhatti, near Patta Mor hit his car against the scooter bearing No. CH-03K-4640 being driven by the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained injuries and he was rushed to Zonal Hospital, Solan, from where, he was referred to IGMC, Shimla, where he remained admitted there w.e.f. 26/5/2010 to 2/6/2010. The petitioner also averred in the petition that he had suffered permanent disability, pain and suffering and spent more than Rs.1,50,000.00 on his treatment. He was working as Welder in his own shop and was earning Rs.12,000.00 per month. At the time of the accident, age of the petitioner was 38 years and due to the accident, his future prospects were affected adversely as now he cannot walk properly and on account of the injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid accident, impaired the enjoyment of his life. The petitioner further averred that a rod was fitted in his leg and he has to take special care throughout his life, hence, prayed for compensation of Rs.7,50,000.00.

(3.) In the reply filed by respondent No.1, it was denied of that the petitioner was earning Rs.12,000.00 per month by doing the work of welding in his shop and that the accident had occurred rt due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. It was specifically averred that infact the petitioner was not having a valid driving licence to drive the scooter and he himself was negligent for causing the accident in question and the compensation as claimed was highly exaggerated and excessive.