The court emphasized enhancing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, stating that 'just compensation' must include assessments for permanent disability and adequate medical expenses incurred.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Appellant Ram Lal, has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended upto date, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’), against the award dated 31.12.2012, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned MACT’), in MAC Petition No.19 of 2009, titled as Ram Lal Versus Narain Singh & Another.

2. By way of award dated 31.12.2012, the learned MACT has allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant, by awarding a sum of Rs.29,000/-, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the amount is deposited with the learned MACT.

3. During the pendency of the lis before this court, owner of the truck Shri Narain Singh has expired and considering the fact that his LR, his wife, is already on record as respondent, his name was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties, vide order dated 29.10.2024.

4. Parties to the present appeal, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned MACT.

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

5.1. Claimant Ram Lal, had filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation on account of the disability/injuries suffered/sustained, on account of the accident, which had taken place on 26.10.2008, at about 5.15 p.m., near Navodya School Kothipura, on Bilaspur-Shimla road, involving Truck No.HP11-0599 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.1 and driven by Suraj Kumar, who was initially impleaded as respondent No.2, in the lis, however, on account of his death, his name was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties, by the learned MACT, vide order dated 03.05.2011.

5.2. According to the claimant, the accident, in question, had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 Suraj Kumar (since deceased). The information regarding the accident was given to Police Station Sadar Bilaspur, where FIR No.349 of 2008, dated 26.10.2008, has been registered.

5.3. Elaborating his stand, it is the case of the claimant that on the fateful day, i.e., on 26.10.2008, at about 5.15 p.m., he, along with his son and wife, was coming back from Solan to Lakhanpur (Bilaspur), in his vehicle No.HP24A-0648, and reached near Navodya School, Kothipura, on Bilaspur-Shimla road, meanwhile, the offending vehicle came from opposite direction, being driven, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the car. Resultantly, the claimant sustained injuries.

5.4. After the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the spot and left the offending vehicle on the spot. The claimant was firstly taken to the Zonal Hospital Bilaspur, where he remained admit from 26.10.2008 to 30.10.2008. Thereafter, for further treatment, he was referred to IGMC Shimla/PGI Chandigarh, but, he was taken to Silver Oak Hospital Mohali, where, he remained admit from 03.11.2008 and was operated there.

5.5. According to the claimant, he was forced to spent Rs.1,83,353/- on his treatment. Highlighting his bright past and bleak future, the claimant has sought compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

6. When put to notice, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle had contested the claim petition, by filing their joint reply, in which, they have taken the preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable; claimant has not disclosed the true facts and the claim petition is bad for no