IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

FAO No. 120 of 2013 Reserved on: 31.08.2023 Decided on: 4th November, 2023 Narinder Kumar .......Appellant Versus Ravinder Mahajan and another ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved four reporting?1 Yes.

For the appellant: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate.

For the respondents: None for respondent No.1.

Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

Virhender Singh, Judge.

g Appellant has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’) against the award dated 06.11.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘learned MACT’) in MACP(RBT) No. 107- N/II-2010/2007, titled as Narinder Kumar vs. Ravinder Mahajan and another.

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. By way of award dated 06.11.2012, the learned MACT has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,49,765/-, along-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing the petition, tHill realization of the entire amount.

3. The parties, to the present lis, are hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, as were referred to, by the learned MACT.

4. Brief factsu, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up as under:-

4.1. Petitioner Narinder Kumar has filed claim petition, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act against the reshpondents being owner-cum-driver, as well as, insurer of gvehicle No. HP-37-0344 (hereinafter referred to as the i‘offending vehicle’).

4.2. The petitioner has filed this petition on the ground that on 12.12.2006 at about 7.00 p.m., he was coming from Pathankot side to Shahpur and when, he reached at Shahpur, the offending vehicle being driven by its driver, reached there and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner. Resultantly, the petitioner fell down along-with motorcycle on the road and his right leg has been fractured. He was firstly taken to CHC, Shahpur from where, he was referred to Dr.

Rajendra Prasad Medical College, Hospital, Dharamshala for further treatment where, he remained admit for 17 days and was operated upon twice. The iron rod and plate shaft were inserted in his leg. After the discharge, petitHioner visited the doctor for follow up.

4.3. The information regarding the accident was given to police of PS, Shahpur. The petitioner has asserted his age as 28 years and stated that he was earning Rs.17,000/- per month. According to uthe petitioner, he has become disabled and he was forced to spend a sum of Rs.50,000/- on his treatment.

5. On the basis of above facts, he has sought the comhpensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents.

g6. When put to notice, the claim petition has been icontested by the respondents.

7. Respondent No.1 has filed reply, in which, the factum of accident has not been denied, but, according to him, the same has been caused due to the rashness and negligence of the petitioner himself. The contents of the rest of the paras have been denied.

7.1. Elaborating the alleged rashness and negligence of the petitioner, it has been pleaded that the petitioner could not control his motorcycle and the same had skidded and thereafter, struck against the stationary vehicle in question.

8 The Insurance-Company has filed its reply by taking preliminary objections that the driver Hof the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, there is collusion between the petitioner and respondent No.1, petition is not muaintainable and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

8.1. On merits, the factual position as asserted in the petition has been denied mainly, for want of knowledge.

9. h The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by grespondent No.1, denyi