The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of proving negligence in motor accident claim cases, the admissibility of witness testimony, and the principles for calculating compensation in personal injury cases.

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar Tyagi, J. (Oral) - The appellant-claimant has filed present appeal against award dated 08.04.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short "the Tribunal") in MACT case No.107 of 2009 titled as Bal Mukand vs. Ashok Kumar and others whereby claim petition seeking compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant in motor vehicular accident, which took place on 03.09.2009, was dismissed.

2. The claimant filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the M.V. Act") on the averments that on 03.09.2009 at about 06:15 P.M. when the claimant was going to his house in Sadar Bazar, Karnal, on his bicycle and reached near Meerut Chowk, Karnal, canter bearing registration No.HR-56A-1114, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and by coming on the wrong side of the road hit the bicycle of the claimant due to which he fell down and suffered injuries. FIR No.578 dated 04.09.2009 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C.") at Police Station, City Karnal. After the accident, the injured was taken to General Hospital, Karnal from where due to his serious condition he was referred to PGI but was shifted to Dr.Ashok Gupta's Hospital at Karnal. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 30 years and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by self-employment as skilled labourer by laying marble floors and fixing tiles. The claimant spent an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on his treatment. Due to the injuries suffered the claimant has become permanently disabled. Therefore, compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- with costs and interest be awarded to him.

3. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. In their written statement, respondents No.1 and 2 pleaded that the vehicle in question, which was insured with respondent No.3, was falsely involved in the accident and denied their liability. In its written statement, respondent No.3 took usual legal objections also as to respondent No.1 not having valid and effective driving licence and breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by the insured and pleaded that no such accident took place and the petition has been filed in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2 to extort money from respondent No.3.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and the parties were given opportunity to produce the evidence.

5. On consideration of evidence on record and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal held that the claimant had failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence to connect the vehicle owned by respondent No.2 with the accident and prove the negligence of respondent No.1 in causing of the accident and dismissed the claim petition.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has filed present appeal.

7. I have heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record.

8. Mr.Vinod K. Kanwal, Advocate for Mr. Ashit Malik, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has argued that the claimant appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and testified that he suffered injuries in accident caused by rash and negligent driving of canter bearing No.HR- 56A-1114 by respondent No.1. The testimony of claimant is supported by copy of report under section 173 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."). The Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence on record. The findings of the Tribunal suffer from material illegality and the impugned award be, therefore, set aside. The claimant spent an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on his medical treatment and the claimant also became permanently disabled due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The