Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 2139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RITU BAHRI, J.
PARVEEN – APPELLANT
Vs.
VIKRAM AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
FAO No. 308 of 2011
Decided on : 30-09-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :T.C. Dhanwal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ramender Chauhan, Ajay Vijaraniya, Vinod Gupta, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation in motor accident cases based on the claimant's age, income, and disability, with reference to relevant legal provisions and judgments.
Headnote:
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Compensation - 2009 Motor Vehicles Act, Section 166 - Summary: The claimant suffered a back injury in a road accident. The Tribunal found the accident to be due to the negligence of the respondent. The compensation was assessed based on the claimant's income and medical expenses. The court referred to various judgments to determine the compensation, considering the claimant's age, income, and disability.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant suffered a back injury in a road accident and sought compensation. The Tribunal found the accident to be due to the negligence of the respondent and awarded compensation based on the claimant's income and medical expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the claimant's injury, medical treatment, and income to reassess the compensation. It referred to various judgments to determine the compensation, considering the claimant's age, income, and disability.
Issues: The issues included the cause of the accident, entitlement to compensation, and the validity of the claim petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the claimant's age, income, and disability to determine the compensation, referring to various judgments for guidance.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal and modified the award to enhance the compensation, citing relevant legal provisions and judgments.
Ritu Bahri, J.
The appellant/claimant has come up in appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dated 10.05.2010, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.8,35,328/- on account of injury suffered by the claimant in a road accident which took place on 05.01.2009.
2. Facts not in dispute are that one Laxman lodged an FIR at Police Station Behrod. He was a driver on vehicle No.HR-47-A-1075. On 05.01.2009 he was going from Kota to Delhi. At 5.00 a.m., he had reached village Gunti. It was a foggy season, therefore, he was driving the vehicle slowly. A vehicle bearing registration No.HR-61-8649 struck Laxman's vehicle from behind and the report was lodged.
3. The claimant had pleaded that he was conductor in truck No.HR-61-8649 and the impact was so high that he suffered fracture on his back bone. It was pleaded that the accident occurred on account of negligence of respondent No.1. It was pleaded that the claimant was 20 years old and he was getting Rs.3500/- per month besides daily expenses of Rs.1500/-. It was pleaded that the claimant had become permanently disabled and the lower partition of the body below the chest could not work and he had no control over his bowel and was unable to sit or stand or change sides and two people were required to attend to him. It was pleaded that he was unmarried and he was lying in a paralysed condition and he could not move his hand and his treatment was still going on.
4. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-
"(1) Whether accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle truck bearing registration No.HR-61-8649 by respondent No.1 Vikram resulting into injuries to claimant Parveen as alleged? OPP.
(2) If issue No.1 is proved, whether claimant Parveen is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
(3) Whether petition is vague, indefinite, not file in accordance with provisions of law and is not maintainable? OPR.
(4) Whether petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition.
(5) Whether petition is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder for necessary parties? OPR.
(6) Whether the petition is result of collusion in between petitioner and respondent No.1 and 2? OPR-3.
(7) Whether respondent No.1 was not having a valid driving license and the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy at the time of accident? OPR-3.
(8) Relief."
5. The Tribunal has returned a finding on issue No.1 in favour of the claimant. The claimant examined himself as PW2 and tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.P12. He produced the copy of the challan Ex.P2 and FIR Ex.P1 and corroborated the version of the FIR. The accident took place on 05.01.2009 and the FIR was lodged on the next day. In the FIR registration number of the vehicle was mentioned. The FIR was lodged by the driver of the vehicle No.HR-47A-1075. The driver was facing trial and in the police report it was mentioned that it was a foggy day. The truck was being driven by Vikram and struck the trailer which was going ahead. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of fault of respondent No.1 does no require any interference in appeal.
6. On issue No.2, injury suffered by the claimant Parveen have been discussed. As per the MLR, he was admitted in the CMC Hisar where he remained admitted till 17.01.2009. He was admitted to PGI Rohtak for 2/3 days. Copy of the MLR was at Ex.P13. PW1 Dr. Lokesh Kumar appeared from CMH Hospital, Hisar and proved the bed head ticket and treatment chart and the MRI report. He stated that the patient had been under treatment of the neuro surgeon. He proved the discharge card Ex.P2 and MRI report Ex.P3. He also proved the bills Ex.P5 to P11. Dr. S.S.Dhankar, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bhiwani PW4 state
