RAJESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHIR RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal and cross-objections are directed against the award of learned Motor Accidents Claims tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H. P. dated 20. 9. 2003 whereby the claim petition filed by appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') has been partly allowed and compensation of Rs. 1,14,000 has been awarded. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant filed the present appeal praying for enhancement of compensation. Respondent No. 1, who is owner-cum-driver of the vehicle involved in the accident has filed cross-objections in which the award has been challenged on two grounds, firstly, that the findings of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 is illegal and secondly that the compensation awarded is highly excessive.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the learned Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, alleging that he is running a shop dealing with sale of readymade garments having an income of Rs. 10,000 per month. It was further alleged that the claimant was 39 years old. According to the averments made in the petition on 31. 7. 1999 at about 1. 45 p. m. , the claimant was coming back to Kangra after collecting money from shopkeepers at Nagri. The claimant was driving his motorcycle. When he was near Dadh, Maruti car bearing No. HIS 3306 came from the opposite side in a very high speed and struck the motor cycle. Claimant fell down and sustained injuries. His right leg was fractured. He was removed to the zonal hospital where his right leg was plastered. He remained admitted in the hospital from 31. 7. 1999 to 4. 10. 1999 but has not still fully recovered. Compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 was claimed.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1, who is owner and driver of Maruti car No. HIS 3306 filed a written statement stating that the accident, if any, took place due to negligent driving of the claimant himself. According to the respondent, the car was going up on a high gradient in a very low and control speed when the motor cycle struck against him. It was denied that the respondent was liable to pay any compensation. Though oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was impleaded as a party in the case, it is not disputed before me that the car in question was not duly insured.