Permanent government employees may not be entitled to compensation for loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability, but they remain entitled to compensation for loss of amenities and pain and suffering.

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been instituted by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) against the award dated 09.05.2001 passed by MACT Gurgaon, vide which a sum of ₹2,00,000/- has been awarded as compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle bearing No.DL-4-CF-7375, which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. All the respondents were held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally.

2. Case of the petitioner is that on 20.10.1999, he was going on his scooter bearing No.HR-26-G-8935 to his house in DLF Colony, Gurgaon. At about 6:45 P.M., when he reached near Atlas Crossing on National Highway No.8, one person, namely, Bhola was pulling a rickshaw in front of his scooter. In the meanwhile, offending vehicle bearing No.DL-4-CF-7375, came from behind which was being driven by respondent No.1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and it hit his scooter from behind and the scooter further hit the rickshaw due to which he as well as rickshaw puller suffered injuries and the scooter was also damaged. The petitioner who suffered grievous injuries was taken to Kalyani Hospital, Gurgaon for treatment. He was 43 years of age and was working as Inspector with Central Excise and Customs Gurgaon and drawing ₹12,800/- per month as salary. He suffered fractures on lower portion of right leg and on upper portion of right arm and he was operated upon at Kalyani Hospital, where he remained admitted from 20.10.1999 to 26.10.1999. He had spent a sum of ₹50,000/- on his treatment and was advised to take bed rest for five months by the doctor. The wife of petitioner was working with Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan and getting a monthly salary of ₹8,300/- and she had to remain on leave from 21.10.1999 to 20.01.2000, as her attendant. He had also spent huge sum on special diet and on physiotherapy and he has also been advised to undergo surgery in future. He has also spent ₹12,000/- for repair of his scooter and needs ₹30,000/- for his future treatment.

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 in their written statement have opposed the petition on the grounds of cause of action and locus standi. It has been denied that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1. The material contents of the claim petition have been refuted and dismissal of the same was sought.

4. Respondent No.3-National Insurance Company Ltd., filed separate written statement and took an objection that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The petition is also bad for non-joinder of the insurer of the scooter and dismissal of the claim petition was sought.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

“1. Whether the motor vehicle accident that took place on 20.10.99 is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of card No. DL-4CF-7375 by respondent No.1? OPP

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the injuries he suffered in the aforesaid accident. If so, in what amount? OPP

3. Whether respondent No.3 is entitled repudiate the contract of insurance on to the grounds alleged? OPP

4. Relief”

6. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

7. After hearing the parties, learned Tribunal held under Issue No.1 that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving