The main legal point established is the determination of liability in a motor vehicle accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the assessment of compensation based on the extent of injuries and expenses incurred by the claimant.

AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

This is an appeal of the claimant before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to him, on account of the injuries received by him in an accident that took place on 10.11.2000.

2. The facts, as taken from the Award of the learned Tribunal, (as the records of this case were burnt in the fire that took place in the record-room of this Court in January 2011), are as detailed hereinafter.

As per the claimant, he was travelling in a jeep bearing registration no.HR-21/4424 on 10.11.2000, going from village Lilas to Gorakhpur. The jeep was allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no.1 herein, due to which it is stated to have turned turtle near village Panihar Chak.

The appellant is stated to have been shifted to Jain Hospital, Hisar, where he remained admitted till 23.11.2000, i.e. for a period of 13 days, during the course of which he spent Rs.35,000/- on his treatment.

3. The claim petition having been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on 11.01.2003, notice was issued to the respondents, upon which respondents no.1 and 2, i.e. the driver and owner of the vehicle (respondent no.1 being the son of respondent no.2), filed a joint written statement denying that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, further stating that actually it was an act of God, for which no-one was liable.

It was otherwise stated that the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3.

4. The insurance company that had insured the vehicle, i.e. respondent no.3, filed a separate written statement taking usual preliminary objections of collusion between the petitioner and the first respondent, of the latter not holding a valid driving licence, nor being under the employment of the insured etc.

On merits, it was contended that the petitioner had himself attached a copy of DDR no.32 dated 10.11.2000, in which respondent no.1 had made a statement before the police that he lost control of the jeep due to the sudden appearance of four 'Neelgais' on the road and as such, it was not anybodys' fault.

The factum of the insurance of the vehicle was admitted but the liability to pay compensation was denied.

5. Upon the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

“1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of jeep bearing registration no. HR-21/4424 driven by respondent no.1 as alleged? OPP

2. Whether petitioner Roshan Lal sustained injuries in this accident, if so to what amount of compensation and from whom, the petitioner is entitled to recover? OPP

3. Whether petition is based on collusive between the petitioner and respondent no.1? OPR3

4. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven by an unauthorized person without holding a valid and effective driving licence? OPR3

5. Relief.”

6. The appellant-claimant examined himself as PW1, Dr. Ramesh Jain as PW2 and Dr. A.L. Bagri as PW3. He also tendered documents by way of evidence, including a copy of the DDR, Ex.P13.

7. Respondents no.1 and 2 tendered in evidence a verification report, which, however, was not exhibited but only taken on record as Mark-A.

The insurance company tendered into evidence the insurance policy as Ex.R1.

8. Upon the aforesaid evidence and the pleadings, the Tribunal found from the testimony of the appellant-claimant, that other than respondent no.1, respondent no.2 was also travelling in the jeep at that time and that respondent no.1 was driving at a very fast speed despite being asked to slow down.

The appellant is shown to have supported his version of the accident in his testimony, but in cross-examination he admitted that he had not lodged any criminal case against the driver and further, that the occupants of the jeep were his relatives.

He further also denied that the accident took place on account of 'Neelgais' coming on to the road a