Compensation awarded for personal injuries must consider actual medical expenses, and future loss claims cannot be inherited post-death unless directly linked to the injury.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the award announced by learned MACT, Una, vide which compensation of Rs.80,240/- along with interest @8% per annum was awarded to the original appellant/claimant/petitioner. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner in which they were arrayed before MACT for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimant filed a claim petition before the learned MACT, Una seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of the accident till its realization.

3. It was asserted that the claimant and his daughter-in-law had gone to Marwari Market on 29.05.2010 at about 11:00 AM to purchase the household articles. A Maruti Zen car bearing registration no.HP-14A-0150 hit the claimant being driven by respondent No.1-Vinod Kapoor from the rear towards the wrong side of the road. The claimant fell on the road and sustained multiple injuries. He was admitted to CHC, Daulatpur, where first aid was given to him. He was referred to a higher institution for his better treatment. The petitioner remained admitted in Maan Mediciti Superspeciality Hospital, Jalandhar, Punjab from 30.05.2010 till 04.06.2010. He had not fully recovered and had visited the hospital repeatedly for further treatment. The accident occurred due to the negligence of respondent no. 1. The matter was reported to the Police and FIR No.94 of 2010 was registered on 16.06.2010. Hence, the petition was filed to seek the compensation mentioned above.

4. The petition was opposed by respondent no. 1 by filing a reply denying the contents of the petition. It was asserted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant. A false FIR was registered by the police against the respondent in connivance with the claimant. The claimant has sought excessive compensation. The claimant tried to cross the road in a haphazard manner and hit the car. Respondent No.1 was driving the car carefully and was not negligent; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. A separate reply was filed by respondent no.2-Insurance Company taking preliminary objections regarding lack of cause of action, the vehicle being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy without a valid RC, fitness and driving license. The contents of the petition were denied on merits. It was asserted that the claimant had sought excessive compensation. The respondent no. 2-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation due to the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy; hence, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.

6. A rejoinder denying the contents of the replies and affirming those of the petition was filed.

7. Learned MACT has framed the following issues on 17.02.2011:

1. Whether petitioner Jasowant Singh sustained injuries as a result of accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent Vinod Kumar while driving vehicle No. HP-14-A-0150?

2. If issue Nor.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Who ether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of a