The court established that compensation in motor accident cases must reflect a just and comprehensive assessment of the claimant's suffering, economic impact, and disability, ensuring alignment with legal principles of beneficial legislation.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Claimant­Kamaljeet has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), with a prayer to modify the enhance the award dated 01.04.2016, passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MACT’), in MAC Case No. 3/2 of 2014, titled as “Kamaljeet Versus Parveen and others”.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned MACT.

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

3.1. Claimant filed the petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, against the respondents, being owner, driver and insurer of vehicle No. HP01H­1444. The claimant has filed the petition due to the fact that on 25.05.2013, he was pillion rider on scooter No. HP22A­5632, which was being driven by Rakesh Kumar. They were on their way from Hamirpur to Nadoun and when reached near DAV School Salashi, at about 7:50 pm, then respondent No. 2 came there while driving vehicle No. HP01H­1444 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter driven by Rakesh Kumar. Consequently, the claimant sustained multiple injuries, as well as, also suffered compound fractures on his right leg. The information regarding the accident was given to Police Station Sadar, where case has been registered against respondent No. 2. After the accident, the claimant was taken to hospital at Hamirpur, from where he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where, he remained admit as indoor patient.

3.2 According to the claimant, he has suffered disability in this accident. Since, the accident has taken place due to sole rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, as such, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. One crore, to the claimant.

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

4.1 Respondent No. 1 has filed his reply by taking the preliminary objection that the learned MACT has no jurisdiction to try and decide the matter, as the accident had taken place within the jurisdiction of MACT Hamirpur.

4.2 On merits, the contents of the claim petition qua the accident has not been disputed. Rest of the contents have been denied. However, he has denied that respondent No. 2 was rash and negligent while driving the offending vehicle.

4.3 In his reply, respondent No. 2 has denied the fact of accident. Rest of the contents have been denied for want of knowledge.

4.4 Insurance company­respondent No. 3, has filed the separate reply by taking the preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable, vehicle was being permitted to drive in violation to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence, the petition is bad for non­joinder and mis­joinder of necessary parties, as driver, owner and insurer of scooter bearing No. HP22A­5632 have not been impleaded.

4.5 On merits, contents of the claim petition have been denied, mainly, for want of knowledge.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal, had framed the following issues, vide order dated 24.02.2015:­

1. Whether on 25.05.2013 at about 7:50 pm near DAV School Salashi, petitioner sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, driver of car No. HP01H­1444? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 above is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP