The court emphasized the careful assessment of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in motor accident cases to ensure just and reasonable compensation for the injured party.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

This appeal by the claimant is directed against the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Shimla on 25.6.2016 whereby the learned claims Tribunal refused to award any compensation in favour of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was unable to prove that he had received multiple injuries caused in view of driving of JCB No. 51B-9831 by the respondent.

2. The pleaded case of the appellant before the learned Tribunal was that on 10.9.2010 he was going from Ruini to Village Bag on foot and at a place Dharoli Kainchi, the JCB which was being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner hit him thereby causing serious injuries to his body especially on the right leg and heel. The appellant was initially taken to Chopal hospital from where he was referred to IGMC, Shimla and remained in casualty till 15.9.2010 and was thereafter taken to PGI, Chandigarh and remained admitted there till 18.9.2010. The appellant was again admitted in IGMC, Shimla on 21.9.2010 and remained there till 10.10.2010. During this period he was operated twice at IGMC, Shimla. The appellant was subsequently again admitted on 13.10.2010 and thereafter discharged on 25.10.2010. He claimed to be still undergoing treatment for which he incurred more than Rs. 3,00,000/-. He also pleaded that he had employed an attendant as he was unable to move on account of leg injury and still requires an attendant. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- on the ground that he was earlier earning Rs. 25,000/- per month from his work and after the accident was unable to do any work.

3. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and had raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, estoppel acquiescence etc. On merits, it was alleged that his vehicle was not involved in the accident and the appellant suffered injury on his leg due to his own act as he slipped in the mud and consequent thereto received injury in question. The driver of the JCB was not at fault and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to claim any compensation from either of the respondents.

4. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed a separate reply wherein preliminary objections were taken to the effect that the JCB was being driven in sheer violation of the insurance policy, vehicle was being driven without any registration, fitness certificate and permit, driver of the JCB was not having licence required for driving the said machine. On merits, it was contended that as the appellant has not supplied any document regarding the accident or his treatment at various hospitals, he be put to strict proof of the same. In addition thereto, it was alleged that the claim of the appellant even otherwise is highly exaggerated and, therefore, should be disallowed.

5. The learned Tribunal below on 6.5.2015 framed the following issues:

“1. Whether on 10.09.2010 Mast Ram petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of JCB No.51B-9831 by respondent No.2 Kuldeep Singh? ..OPP

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

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? ..OPR-1.

4. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action?.OPR-1.

5. Whether the petitioner is estopped to file the present petition on account of his own acts, deeds and acquiescence? ..OPR-1.

6. Whether the JCB Machine was being driven in violation of insurance policy? ..OPR-3.

7. Whether the vehicle was being driven without permit as required under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if so its effect? OPR-3.

8. Whether the driver of JCB Machine was driving the vehicle without any licence, as alleged?..OPR-3.

9. Relief.

6. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned Tribunal, as observed earlier, proceeded to dismiss the