IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the determination of 'just compensation' under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering the evidence and interpreting the legislative intent as beneficial legislation.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Appellant­Mahavir Bedi, has preferred the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended up to date, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), against the award dated 28.1.2013, passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’), in MAC Case No.76 of 2011, titled as Mahavir Bedi versus Sudarshan Kumar & Another.

2. By way of award dated 28.1.2013, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioner, by awarding a sum of Rs.87,000/­, as compensation, along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the amount is deposited with the learned Tribunal, against the respondents. However, the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened on respondent No.2­Insurance­Company.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned Tribunal.

4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up as under:­

4.1. Petitioner Mahavir Bedi, has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in road side accident involving vehicle No.HP01­D­0715, (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle, being owned and driven by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2.

4.2. The petitioner has sought the relief on the ground that on 8.10.2009, he was on the way to Sunshine Hotel, Chhattara to attend a marriage, along with his servant Kuldeep Singh, on his motorcycle, HP20­B­5152. Near Rakkar Colony Una, the offending vehicle was descending Una Nangal Highway.

4.3. The offending vehicle overtook a motorcyclist and the petitioner was behind the offending vehicle. Meanwhile, a car bearing registration No.CH03­D­1694, driven by one Vinod Kumar came from Rakkar Colony. At the relevant time, respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner and he could not stop the offending vehicle. Consequently, the offending vehicle and the said Maruti Car collided.

4.4. Since, the petitioner and his pillion rider were behind the offending vehicle, as such, they struck against the offending vehicle and sustained injuries. Damages were also caused to the motorcycle, driven by the petitioner. After the accident, petitioner was taken to District Hospital Una, from where, he, as well as, the pillion rider were referred to DMC Ludhiana, where, they remained under treatment for more than one year. The petitioner has pleaded his age, at the relevant time, as 28 years and according to him, he was working as Manager at the Manohar Di Hatti Cloth Merchant Una. It is his further case that at the relevant time, he was earning Rs.30,000/­ per month. The information with regard to the accident was given to the Police, where, FIR No.367, dated 9.10.2009, was registered under Sections 279, 337, 304­A IPC, with Police Station Sadar, Una.

5. On the basis of the above facts, he has sought the relief, as claimed in the claim petition.

6. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents.

7. Respondent No.1 has filed the reply, wherein, factum of accident has not been disputed. However, according to him the accident, in question, had taken place due to the fault of the injured himself.

7.1. Elaborating the stand, it is the case of respondent No.1 that the petitioner could not stop his motorcycle, despite the red light signal, as such, respondent No.1, has pleaded that he be exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation. Rest of the contents of he claim petition have been denied.

7.2. The factum of registration of the FIR, as pleaded in para 9 of the petition, has been admitted, but, the said case has been termed to be a false case.

8. Insurance Company has filed its separa