The court re-evaluated compensation for a motor accident, rejecting a finding of contributory negligence against the claimant and emphasizing the need for proper assessment of permanent disability and future medical expenses.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant against the impugned award dated 25.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) whereby an amount of Rs. 12,64,300/- was awarded as compensation to the claimant-appellant.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 10.05.2010 the claimant-appellant was coming from village Chormar to Sirsa on his motorcycle at a moderate speed and on the left side of the road. One Rakesh Kumar and Amritpal Singh were also coming behind on their motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-30-E-2602 and when they reached Jhopra Road, Lord Hanuman Temple, Meerpur Colony near the fields of one Jagdish, the offending vehicle bearing registration No.HR-21-F-0497 (Tata 407) came from Sirsa side at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and struck the motorcycle of the claimant-appellant. As a result, the claimant-appellant fell on the road and sustained injuries on his person and thereafter the claimant-appellant was shifted to Government Hospital, Sirsa where he was referred to higher institution for better treatment and was brought to Sarvodya Hospital, Hisar. An FIR No.112 dated 11.05.2010 was registered under Sections 279 , 337, 427 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 at Police Station Sadar Sirsa against the driver of the offending vehicle (respondent No.1 herein). Upon notice respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their joint written statement taking the preliminary objection that the vehicle has falsely been implicated in the present case. On merits it was stated that no accident took place. Respondent No.3 (Insurance Company) appeared through counsel and filed its written statement taking various preliminary objections regarding maintainability, respondent No.1 was not having a valid driving licence etc. On merits, the factum of the accident was denied and it was averred that the FIR was falsely registered. The Tribunal vide the impugned award held that it was a case of head-on collision and fastened the liability to the extent of 25% to the claimant-appellant and awarded the following compensation:

3. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that in the present case, the contributory negligence to the extent of 25% has wrongly been fastened upon the claimant-appellant. The learned counsel has pointed out that the owner and driver and the Insurance Company in their written statement had actually denied the factum of the accident and no defense of contributory negligence was even raised by them. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the vehicle was being driven on the left side of the road and was hit from the front by the offending vehicle. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that the claimant-appellant was 30 years of age at the time of the accident which took place on 10.05.2010 and was working as a driver and earning Rs. 50,000/- per m