The court held the driver solely responsible for the accident and enhanced the compensation.

Amol Rattan Singh, J.

This is an appeal filed by the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, seeking enhancement of the compensation of Rs.10,03,332/- awarded to him vide the impugned Awarded dated 24.01.2013, on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 28.11.2010.

In the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it was stated that on the aforesaid date, at about 2:30 pm, the petitioner was returning to his house on his motorcycle bearing registration no.DL-3G-BJ-3215 from the side of Jhajjar. When he reached in the area of village Gurawara, District Rewari, a truck/'trolla' bearing registration no.RJ-14GB-2316, came from the opposite side and struck against his motorcycle due to the rash and negligent manner in which it was being driven by respondent no.1 herein.

The petitioner fell down and received multiple injuries on his body due to the accident.

It was further contended that respondent no.1 stopped his vehicle for a few minutes and upon disclosing his name to the numerous persons who had gathered there, slipped away from the spot upon seizing a chance to do so.

The appellant is stated to have been shifted to the Civil Hospital at Rewari, where a medico-legal report was prepared and he was provided first aid, but on account of his serious injuries, he was referred to the PGIMS, Rohtak, from which, (as contended) because he was not getting adequate treatment, he was taken to the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, where he remained admitted till 07.12.2010.

2. It was further contended that he was operated upon at the said hospital and his right leg had to be amputated on 30.11.2010, below the thigh.

Consequently, the claim petition was filed, stating therein that he was still under treatment at the time of its filing and had been advised to obtain an artificial limb, for which a huge sum of money was required by him. It was also contended that Rs.3,00,000/- had been spent on his treatment.

As regards the accident, FIR No.128, dated 29.11.2010, was stated to have been registered at Police Station Rohada, District Rewari, against respondent no.1, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/337 and 338 IPC.

It was further contended that the appellant-claimant was 29 years of age and was an ex-serviceman from the Indian Army and since 07.09.2010, he was working as a Chowkidar at the M.D. High School, Paintawas Kalan, Bhiwani, from where he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.6000/-.

3. Upon notice being issued to the three respondents before the Tribunal, i.e. the driver, owner and insurer of the aforementioned truck, respondent no.1, i.e. the driver, did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex parte by the learned Tribunal, vide an order dated 08.08.2012.

The owner of the vehicle, i.e. respondent no.2, filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections and on merits, contended that the petitioner himself was wholly responsible for the accident, due to his own rash and negligent driving. Hence, the negligence of respondent no.1 in driving the truck was denied, as were the other averments in the claim petition.

4. The insurance company filed a separate written statement, also raising various preliminary objections including the fact that the first respondent was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and that respondent no.2 had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

On merits, it was contended that a false FIR had been registered against respondent no.1, in collusion with the police.

Still further, the vehicle being insured with the 3rd respondent, i.e. the insurance company, on the date of the accident, was also denied, further stating that the whole story of the accident had been concocted only to grab “false compensation”.

Thus, even the factum o