Compensation for injuries must be just and reasonable, with assessments based on evidence of income and disability, not mere assertions.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant appeal, the insurer has assailed the award dated 17.12.2018, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan (for short the ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 04- NL/2/2017, whereby respondent No.1 herein (for short the ‘claimant’) has been awarded compensation of Rs. 12,84,700/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum and the insurer has been directed to satisfy the award.

2. The claimant had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’) before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation on account of injuries and permanent disablement suffered by him in an accident involving motor vehicle.

3. The claimant had alleged that on 18.8.2016, at about 9.30 AM, he was riding his motorcycle No. HP- 12B-0671 with his wife and child on the pillion. When he reached near the house of Bhagat Singh at Village Rampur-Berchha, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan his motorcycle was hit by a car bearing No.HP-12E-9488 being driven by Bal Krishan (for short the owner/driver) in rash and negligent manner.

4. The claimant allegedly suffered grievous injuries to both of his legs, which resulted in 35% disablement of the petitioner. The petitioner was admitted in Usha Nursing Home, Ropar, Punjab from 18.8.2016 to 26.6.2016 and during this period he was also operated upon.

5. Petitioner claimed to have spent Rs.5,00,000/- on his treatment including expenses of special diet, medicines, attendant and hiring of vehicle etc. As per the petitioner, he was a transporter having ownership of two trucks. He claimed to be earning Rs. 80,000/- per month from his avocation. Petitioner claimed total compensation of Rs. 70,00,000/- on the ground that he had suffered permanent disablement and was confined to bed even till the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 13.12.2016 and was suffering from continuous pain and suffering besides having suffered loss of future earning @ Rs. 80,000/- per month.

6. The claimant stated his age to be 48 years at the time of accident.

7. The owner-cum-driver filed his reply and denied the factum of accident. He disclosed that the vehicle No. HP-12E-9488 was insured with the insurer. It was alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of claimant himself, who was unable to keep control and balance over the motorcycle.

8. The insurer filed the reply and alleged violation of the contract of policy by the insured. It was alleged that the owner-cum-driver was not possessing a valid driving license at the time of accident. It was also alleged that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the claimant. Therefore, the objection as to the non joinder of necessary parties vis a vis the insurer of the motorcycle of the claimant was also taken. The averments made in the claim petition with respect to the income, loss of future income and disability etc. were denied in generality.

9. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“i) Whether on the morning of 18.8.2016, at about 9.30 a.m. at place Rampur Baircha, Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, the respondent N.1 was driving Nano Car bearing Registration No. HP12E-9488 rashly and negligently, which resulted in causing multiple injuries to the petitioner Surinder Singh, rider of motorcycle bearing No. HP-12B-0671, which was being driven by him and knocked down by aforesaid car, as alleged. OPP

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? OPP

iii) Whether petition of the petitioner is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

iv) Whether the aforesaid car was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-2.

v) Whether the petition of the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged?

vi) Relief.”

10. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in affirmative while all other issues were answered in negative. The claim petition was allowed and the claimant has been awa