SHYAM LAL Vs. RANJEET SINGH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is maintained by the appellant/petitioner/claimant (hereinafter referred to as 'claimant') under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of the compensation awarded by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P., dated 10.08.2011, in MAC Petition No. 16 of 2010.

(2.) Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 17.11.2007, at about 10 A.M. the claimant was standing on the left side of road, near State Bank of Patiala, Dagrahan. In the meanwhile, Scooter, being driven by respondent No. 1, in excessive and uncontrollable speed hit the claimant hard which resulted into multiple fractures to his left leg and his kidney was also damaged, as a result of which he became unconscious. After the said accident the claimant was immediately shifted to P.H.C. Swarghat, wherefrom on the same day, he was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh. On 28/29.11.2008, the damaged kidney of the claimant was removed. The claimant remained admitted at P.G.I. w.e.f. 17.11.2007 to 15.12.2007. However, for follow-up check-ups he visited P.G.I. eight times. It is averred that claimant was running a cloth shop and tent house and earning Rs. 10,000.00 per month, but after the said accident his shop remained closed for 13 months. It is further averred that he was accompanied to P.G.I. Chandigarh, by his father, brother and his two friends, who remained present there upto 15.12.2007 and they spent Rs. 15,000.00 while attending him. The brother of the claimant, who was a photographer and running a Studio, suffered loss of Rs. 15,000.00 as his shop remained closed upto 15.12.2007. The claimant kept one attendant continuously for 13 months and paid Rs. 5,000.00 per month to him, thus he claimed Rs. 65,000.00 as expenses for keeping attendant. It is further averred that the claimant had spent Rs. 89,031.00 for medicines, Rs. 18,500.00 as taxi charges. As per the claimant his family is having 30 bighas of cultivable land wherefrom he was also earning Rs. 50,000.00 per annum. But, now, the claimant is unable to perform any hard work due to the removal of one kidney and due to this his life span has been shortened and his life is also subjected to permanent danger, terror and tension of kidney failure at any time. Therefore, the claimant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 20,00,000.00.

(3.) Respondents No. 1 & 2 contested the claim petition by filing reply. It is averred therein that the accident took place due to the negligent act of the claimant. It is further averred that on the said date respondent No.1 was on his way and the claimant came in the centre of the road to cross towards other side and the accident took place, respondent No. 1 also fell down on the hard surface and sustained multiple injuries. It is further averred that the accident took place due to the own negligence of the claimant, hence he is not entitled for compensation.