Appellant-Pardeep Kumar has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), being dissatisfied with the award dated 30.10.2013, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned MACT’), in MAC Petition No. 22 of 2010, RBT No. 21 of 2013, titled as ‘Pardeep Kumar Versus Arun Kumar and others’.

By way of the award dated 30.10.2013, the learned MACT has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,16,726/-, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the amount. The litigation expenses have also been quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were held liable to pay the amount of compensation by exonerating respondent No. 3 from paying compensation.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to him, by learned MACT.

For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned MACT.

Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, may be summed up, as under:-

Petitioner Pardeep Kumar, has approached the learned MACT, under Section 166 of M.V. Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, on account of injuries/disability suffered/sustained in a road side accident, involving vehicle No. HP55B-7502. The petition has been filed against the respondents, being owner, driver and insurer of vehicle No. HP55B-7502 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’).

According to the petitioner, the accident in question had taken place on 03.01.2010. The petitioner was pillion rider on motorcycle No. HP22A-4793, owned by Jagdish Chand (Jaggu) son of Sh. Rattan Chand. When, they reached near Taran Da-Choa, meanwhile, offending vehicle, being driven by respondent No. 2, came from Nadaun side and hit the motorcycle No. HP22A-4793, due to which, the petitioner sustained injuries. Cause of accident is pleaded as rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 2.

According to the petitioner, after the accident, he was initially taken to the hospital of Dr. Vikas Mandyal at Hamirpur, who is running the hospital under the name and style of Sri Krishna Hospital. Thereafter, he was shifted to Rajinder Parsad Government Medical College and Hospital, Tanda. He was discharged from the hospital on 01.02.2010. The information regarding the accident was given to Police Station Nadaun, where FIR No. 15 of 2010, dated 15.01.2010, under Sections 279, 337 of IPC has been registered against respondent No. 2, driver of the offending vehicle.

According to the petitioner, due to the injuries, he has become disabled and prior to the accident, he was mason by profession. At the time of accident, his age was 34 years. He has pleaded his income as Rs. 10,000/- per month.

On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the claim petition, as prayed for.

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

Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed the joint reply, in which, they have denied the factum of accident. According to them, FIR has been wrongly lodged by the petitioner in connivance with owner of motorcycle bearing No. HP22A-4793, however, the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of rider of motorcycle No. HP22A-4793. Rest of the contents have been denied.

Insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 3, has filed its separate reply, taking preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable, as the offending vehicle was not insured with them; the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effecting driving license, at the time of accident; and the offending vehicle was being permitted to ply in violation of the terms and conditions of th