MAMTA DEVI Vs. KAMAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is maintained by the appellant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') for quashing and setting aside the impugned award, dated 01.03.2016, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P, in MAC Petition No. 100-G/13/2008.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 28.8.2007 at about 11:00 AM, respondent-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') along-with a pillion rider, was on his way from Amlehar to Manpul, on his motorcycle bearing No. HP-55-3791, it struck against Maruti Car bearing No. HP-55A-0259, at place Majiar, as a result of which, petitioner sustained multiple injuries i.e. fracture of leg bone and thereafter, he was taken to CHC, Nadaun. It is alleged that the offending vehicle was driven by the respondent in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the incident had occurred and the petitioner sustained injuries. The husband of the respondent also came to CHC Nadaun and assured that he will bear all the expenses of his medical treatment and thus, persuaded the petitioner not to report the matter to the police. The petitioner was treated at Government Hospital, Nadaun as well Krishna Hospital, Hamirpur. Neither the respondent nor her husband paid any expenses of medical treatment, as promised.

(3.) Respondent contested the petition by filing a reply whereby, preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and estoppel were taken. On merits, respondent denied the factum of accident and also denied that the husband of the respondent promised to pay for medical expenses of the petitioner. Respondent had not disclosed owner of the offending Maruti car and the Insurance Company with whom the offending vehicle was registered. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application, under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amending his petition, as to implead the name of the owner. He from his own sources came to know that the offending Maruti car is owned by the respondent and in this regard, he made an application, which was allowed.