MAST RAM Vs. YOGESH AZTA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the claimant is directed against the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Shimla on 25.6.2016 whereby the learned claims Tribunal refused to award any compensation in favour of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was unable to prove that he had received multiple injuries caused in view of driving of JCB No. 51B-9831 by the respondent.

(2.) The pleaded case of the appellant before the learned Tribunal was that on 10.9.2010 he was going from Ruini to Village Bag on foot and at a place Dharoli Kainchi, the JCB which was being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner hit him thereby causing serious injuries to his body especially on the right leg and heel. The appellant was initially taken to Chopal hospital from where he was referred to IGMC, Shimla and remained in casualty till 15.9.2010 and was thereafter taken to PGI, Chandigarh and remained admitted there till 18.9.2010. The appellant was again admitted in IGMC, Shimla on 21.9.2010 and remained there till 10.10.2010. During this period he was operated twice at IGMC, Shimla. The appellant was subsequently again admitted on 13.10.2010 and thereafter discharged on 25.10.2010. He claimed to be still undergoing treatment for which he incurred more than Rs. 3,00,000/-. He also pleaded that he had employed an attendant as he was unable to move on account of leg injury and still requires an attendant. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- on the ground that he was earlier earning Rs. 25,000/- per month from his work and after the accident was unable to do any work.

(3.) Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and had raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, estoppel acquiescence etc. On merits, it was alleged that his vehicle was not involved in the accident and the appellant suffered injury on his leg due to his own act as he slipped in the mud and consequent thereto received injury in question. The driver of the JCB was not at fault and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to claim any compensation from either of the respondents.