JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

FAO-3690-2013

1. The present appeal has been preferred against award dated 08.04.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Muktsar Sahib (for short, 'the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the ground of quantum of compensation to be on higher side, and that appellant/insurance company was wrongly held liable to pay the compensation to claimant/respondent No.1.

XOBJC-71 -2022

2. The present cross-objection has been preferred by cross- objector/claimant (respondent No. 1 herein) against the award dated 08.04.2013 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Tribunal, for enhancement of compensation, granted to the cross-objector/claimant to the tune of Rs.8,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum on account of injuries suffered by respondent No.1/cross objector.

3. Since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross- objections filed by the claimant/cross-objector are arising out of the same award dated 08.04.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, FAO-3690-2013 and XOBJC-71-2022 are decided vide this common judgment.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.2011, at about 7AM, the claimant alongwith his cousin Resham Singh were proceeding on motor cycle bearing registration No. PB-47D-6250 from Nanaksar to Sri Muktsar Sahib on the left side of the road. The claimant was sitting on the pillion of the motor cycle which was being driven by Resham Singh. When they reached near Petrol pump at bus stand of village Sarainaga, the offending vehicle came from the opposite side and it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed by respondent No.l without blowing any horn. The offending vehicle without giving any indication struck its one side with the motor cycle while overtaking a truck. As a result of the accident, the claimant alongwith Resham Singh fell down from the motor cycle on the road. The claimant had suffered injuries on his head, left arm, chest and other body parts. Motor cycle was also damaged and Resham Singh also suffered minor injuries. The claimant was taken to Civil Hospital Muktsar by some person, who was present at the spot. Claimant was referred to Bharat Hospital Bathinda and thereafter due to serious injuries, the claimant was further referred to DMC College and Hospital, Ludhiana and since then he is getting treatment from the said hospital. The police had not reduced into writing the statement of the claimant and rather entered the DDR on twisted facts by changing the whole story. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.l. It has been alleged that the claimant is aged about 18'/2 years and was a student of 10+2. He was also extending helping hand in the agricultural pursuit to his father and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. It has been alleged that respondent No.2 is owner of the offending vehicle and the same has been insured with respondent no.3.

5. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and admitted the factum of compensation.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal :-

“1. Whether the claimant has sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 09.06.2011, at about 7AM, in the area of Sarainaga, District Sri Muktsar Sahib due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration NO.PB-30D-9099 by respondent No.l? OP-Claimant

2. Whether claimant is entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and claimant from whom? OP-claimant

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

4. Whether the claimant has no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR

5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties? OPR”

7. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

8. Aft