RUPEE Vs. BAHADUR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant -claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 12.7.2007 passed by the MACT, Hindaun City, District, Karauli, in claim case No. 63/2004, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimant -appellant. The brief facts as emerging on the face of record are that a claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal under Section 166/140 of the M.V. Act against driver Bahadur Singh (non -petitioner No. 1), Vijay Singh owner of the vehicle (non -petitioner No. 2) and Insurance Company (non -petitioner No. 3) alleging therein that on 23.9.2003 when claimant -appellant was coming from Mahua to Hindaun in a Jeep bearing No. RJ 29/C -1419, from Mahua, the driver of the Jeep (non -petitioner No. 1) started driving the Jeep with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and as soon as the Jeep reached at Ganeli Mod, it collided with Kishan Bugga on account of which the Jeep turned down two three times and appellant sustained injuries. In this regard a FIR was also registered at the concerned Police Station and a charge -sheet was also filed against the driver. It was mentioned in the claim petition that claimant sustained 10% permanent disability.

(2.) THE non -petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 filed their reply denying all the averments made in the claim petition. The non -petitioner No. 3 -Insurance Company also filed their reply denying all the allegations made in the claim petition.

(3.) SHRI Sanjay Singhal, ld. counsel for the claimant -appellant vehemently submitted that on account of rash & negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver, the vehicle turned down two three times and the claimant -appellant sustained severe injuries and not only the FIR was lodged but even the charge -sheet was filed. On account of the said accident, the injuries were grievous and the claimant -appellant suffered 10% disability. He further contended that on account of the severe injuries, the claimant -appellant is unable to do regular work and will suffer throughout the life and will not be able to lead normal life as other human being or prior to the accident which the claimant -appellant led. He also contended that the Ld. Tribunal erred in also directing to recover the amount of Rs. 25,000/ - with interest which is not proper, moreso, when the accident and other things have been proved.