The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for motor accident injuries under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

By the medium of this appeal, the appellant-claimant-injured has called in question award, dated 17th March, 2012, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II)-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (for short “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 219/2005 (112S/2003), titled as Umed Singh versus Sh. Sohan Singh and others, whereby the claim petition came to be dismissed (for short “the impugned award”).

2. The appellant-claimant-injured filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, on the ground that he became the victim of the vehicular accident which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Tilak Raj, while driving truck bearing registration No. HP-32-0670, rashly and negligently, on 13th April, 2002, at about 4.00 P.M., at place Kulah, near Swarghat.

3. The respondents resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 2nd August, 2005:

“1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HP-32-0670 on 13-4-2002 at place Kulah near Swarghat being driven by respondent No. 2 as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3

4. Whether the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger at the time of the accident, if so its effect? OPR-3

5. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy at the time of accident? OPR-3

6. Relief.”

5. The appellant-claimant-injured has examined six witnesses in support of his claim and himself appeared in the witness box as PW4. The insurer has examined two witness in support of its defence.

6. It is apt to record herein that the owner-insured and driver of the offending vehicle were proceeded against ex-parte by the Tribunal vide order, dated 13th July, 2009.

7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, dismissed the claim petition in terms of the impugned award. Hence, the appeal.

Issue No. 1:

8. The Tribunal, while making discussions in paras 11 to 18 of the impugned award, held that the claimant-injured has proved that the accident was caused by the driver, namely Shri Tilak Raj, while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the relevant point of time, in which claimant-injured sustained injuries. The owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the said findings. The appellant-claimant-injured has also not questioned the same. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld.

9. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issue No. 4 at the first instance.

Issue No. 4:

10. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellant-claimant-injured was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger at the time of the accident.

11. The appellant-claimant-injured has specifically pleaded in paras 10 and 24 of the claim petition that he was travelling in the offending vehicle as cleaner of the vehicle, which factum is admitted by the owner-insured and driver of the offending vehicle in their respective replies. Thus, there was no dispute about the factum of the appellant-claimant-injured being employed as cleaner with the offending vehicle. Therefore, there was no need to frame the issue relating to the said fact in terms of the mandate of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”).

12. However, the insurer has taken a specific plea in its reply that the appellant-claimant-injured was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger at the time of th