RAJESH KUMAR Vs. PARKASH CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short 'Act') has been preferred by claimant against the award dated 02.04.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in MAC Petition No. 35 of 2001 whereby he was awarded a sum of Rs. 2,05,000/ - as compensation with costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

(2.) THE appellant Rajesh Kumar had filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for grant of compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 10.04.2001 at about 1.30 p.m. near Jaurbar, Tehsil Amb, District Una. The appellant was infact a pillion rider on scooter bearing No. HP -36 -3944 which was being driven by Ravi Nath and when the scooter reached near village Jaurbar, a bus bearing No. HP -36 -4536 which was being driven by respondent No. 1(since deceased) in a rash and negligent manner in a wrong side and struck the same with the scooter. The appellant as well as Ravi Nath sustained grievous injuries including fracture of his body. After the accident, the appellant was removed to CHC, Chintpurani, where he was examined and after giving first aid, he was referred to Bharaj Nursing Home, Hoshiarpur, where the appellant remained admitted from 10.04.2001 to 16.04.2001. As per appellant, he was again admitted on 30.04.2001 and he was operated for the fracture of his leg by doctor Rachhpal Singh. On 21.06.2001, the said doctor also did skin grafting and plaster on the leg. The appellant averred that he remained confined to bed for more than one month and had been visiting Bharaj Nursing Home by hiring taxi. The appellant was also treated in Him Bone Joint Care Centre, Gagret. According to appellant, he had spent more than Rs. 50,000/ - on medical treatment and at the time of accident he was serving as Pipe Lineman in IPH Sub Division, Dadasiba and earning Rs. 4,700/ - per month. The appellant had claimed Rs. 5,00,000/ - as compensation.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed separate reply taking preliminary objections that the petition is vague, baseless and does not disclose any cause of action. The ill -fated bus was being driven against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The driver of the bus was not having a valid driving licence and the same was being plied without route permit, registration certificate etc.