GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimant, Gurcharan Singh, assails the award in M.A.C. Petition No. 8 of 1988, decided on 3-6-1989, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, thereby dismissing the claim preferred by the claimant, claiming compensation from the respondents to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000.00 for the personal injuries sustained by him.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that on 6-9-1987, the claimant, a pillion rider with his friend Amar Singh, was going on scooter No. Pun-792 at about 11-30 p.m. after seeing the circus show near the Bus-stand, Una. As soon as they reached near the chowk of new bus stand, Car No. HIU-1000, driven by respondent No. 3, and owned by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, came from behind and hit the scooter with the result that the scooterists fell down along with the scooter and sustained injuries. In the case of Amar Singh the injuries were quite simple and he did not advance any claim for compensation whereas the claimant in the present case sustained injury to the left ankle which got fractured. Two persons, eye witnesses, namely, Chhotu alias Santosh and Hari, carried the claimant and his friend to the district hospital and were admitted there. The claimant remained admitted in the hospital up to 30-9-1987 and thereafter he visited the hospital again on 27-10-1987 since the injury had not healed by that time. The hospital authorities there referred the claimant to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh (PGI). The injury resulted in permanent disability and affected the earning capacity of the petitioner to the extent of 10%. The petitioner further states that he had started the job of welding after getting a loan from a nationalised bank under the unemployed scheme but due to the injury, he could not follow the said vocation. His age, at the time of the accident, was about 25 years and his monthly income has been stated to be Rs. 2,000.00.

(3.) THE trial ended in the dismissal of the claim petition since the Tribunal held that the claimant was not knocked down by car No. HIU-1000. Having come to this finding on issue No. 1, decision on other issues became redundant, the Tribunal held.