JUDGMENT

Ms. Amarjot Bhatti, J.

The appellant - Raghbir Singh filed present appeal against impugned award dated 05.02.2009 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra vide which he has been granted award to the tune of Rs.4,21,500/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of petition till realization of the award as detailed therein, with the prayer that the quantum of compensation is towards the lower side which is liable to be enhanced.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant-Raghbir Singh filed claim petition under section 166 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 against the respondents alleging that at the time of filing of claim petition he was 35 years old. He was working as shop keeper and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The accident took place on 16.08.2006 when he was going from Babain to village Tharwa on Babain Barara road on his motorcycle No.HR-07J-1314. At about 5:20 AM, when he reached at Bir mangholi chowk, the offending truck No.HR-63-A-1168 driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently came from Lakhmari side and hit his motorcycle in the middle of crossing of Bir mangholi by coming on the wrong side of the road. In this accident he fell down and received multiple injuries including fracture of left ankle bone, fracture below knee left fibula and tear of muscle. His motorcycle was damaged. The respondent No.1 stopped his truck for a while and thereafter managed to escape towards Babain side. The accident was witnessed by Vinod Kumar and Chand Ram who were coming behind on another motorcycle. After the accident, he was taken to PHC Babain but due to his serious condition he was not admitted there and was advised to admit him in LNJP Hospital Kurukshetra. He was admitted in LNJP Hospital Kurukshetra on 16.08.2006 where he was medico legally examined and remained there up to 17.08.2006. Thereafter he was shifted to Apna Hospital, Kurukshetra where he was operated on 18.08.2006. He was again operated due to injury on his ankle. He had spent two lac rupees on his treatment, medicines, payment towards transportation etc. Prior to the accident, he was having good physic but now he has become disabled. His profession has been adversely effected. His entire life has become miserable due to the injuries suffered in the accident. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs.5 lacs along with interest and cost.

3. The claim application was contested by all the respondents. The respondents No.1 to 3 had filed joint written statement denying the accident as well as the manner in which it allegedly took place. The involvement of offending truck as well as respondent No.1-Dharminder was denied. It was alleged that a false criminal case was registered against Dharminder.

4. The respondent No.4 filed separate written statement taking the stand that claim application is not maintainable. No accident took place and a false FIR was registered with the collusion and connivance of respondents No.1 to 3. The respondent No.4 wanted to contest the claim application on all the grounds as available to respondents No.1 to 3. The alleged vehicle was driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On merits, the facts were denied for want to knowledge. The respondents No.1 and 2 never informed the insurance company about the accident. In fact no such accident took place. The claimant is not entitled to receive any compensation under any head. The claim of claimant is highly excessive. All the facts mentioned regarding accident as well as rash and negligent driving are denied. A false and frivolous FIR was arranged