SARVESHWAR Vs. IMRAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgement and award dated 2.1.2012 passed by learned Judge, MACT, Jaipur & Addl. Distt. Judge (FT) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 25.2.2009 the claimant-appellant and one Raghunath were going by Motor Cycle No. RJ - 01 - 14 M - 5220 from Kishangarh towards Ajmer. When they reached near Anand Hotel, a truck No. GJ-9Y-8676 being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver respondent No. 1, came and hit the motorcycle, and because of this hit, claimant-appellant sustained serious injuries.

(3.) It was also averred in the claim petition that at the time of accident, the appellant was 26 years of age. He, by working as Supervisor with Bhoomi Project Pvt. Ltd., Kishangarh, Ajmer was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 9500.00. He sustained serious injuries all over this body, specially on his right leg. Because of this crush injury on right leg, it was a imputed below the knee and there were fractures in his right femur and patella bones. He remained admitted in hospital from 25.1.2009 to 8.2.2009 where on 25.1.2009 and 31.1.2009, his operations were done. Even after discharge from the hospital, his treatment remained continued for quite a long period and he remained confined to bad. During the prolonged treatment more than Rs. 2.0 lacs have been spent under different heads like medicines, doctor's fees, hospitalization, nourishing diet, attendants and transportation. As the claimant-appellant still requires continuous treatment, hence he will have to incur much more money on treatment in future. Now because of amputation of leg, the claimant-appellant has come in the category of a permanently disabled and handicapped person. His life has become miserable and he feels difficulty in doing daily activity work. Although as per opinion of the medical board, he has got a permanent disablement of 65%. The respondent No. 1 driver of the truck did not file any reply to the claim petition whereas respondent Nos. 2 & 3 owner and Insurance Company filed their separate reply. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, relevant issues were framed by the Tribunal and certain evidences were examined.