BALKAR SINGH Vs. BABAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is maintained by the appellant/claimant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') for enhancing the amount awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, H.P, in MAC Petition No.18 of 2008, vide award dated 10.9.2010.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the petitioner maintained a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation on account of the injuries he suffered due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2 of the vehicle owned by respondent No.1, in an accident on 26.2.2008. As per the petitioner, respondent No.2, who was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and struck it against the front right side of the tanker being driven by the petitioner, as a result of which, he suffered multiple injuries on his left femur right knee, right ankle and multiple fractures. The petitioner had been taken to local hospital for medical aid, thereafter referred to PGI, Chandigarh on 27.2.2008 and discharged on 9.4.2008. The petitioner had again been admitted in PGI, Chandigarh, on 22.4.2008. The petitioner had been under continuous medical treatment and spent a sum of Rs. 1 lac. Even after medical treatment of months together, the petitioner had not been keeping fit. The petitioner had not been able to earn after the alleged accident. He stood crippled for the rest of his life and had turned dependent on others. Respondent No.1 was registered owner of the truck bearing No. UP11T0884. Respondent No.1 was vicariously liable for rash and negligent act of his driver. Respondents No.1 and 2 have resisted the petition. They have admitted the ownership and possession of respondent No.1 of vehicle bearing No. UP11T0884. As per them, on 26.2.2008 respondent No.2 driving the truck with due care and caution and the accident had not taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. The petitioner had not suffered any injury due to the act of respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 also resisted and contested the petition. Respondent No.3 provided insurance cover to vehicle bearing No. UP11T0884 for the period from 24.8.2007 to 23.8.2008. It has been averred that respondent No.2 had not been in possession of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Respondent No.1 plying his vehicle in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

(3.) The learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 18.1.2010 :