YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

IOIN-1-FAO-5168-2005

The present IOIN has been put by the office for impleading the LRs of respondent No.3. However, learned counsel for the appellant has filed an application for impleading the LRs of respondent No.3.

IOIN stands disposed of.

The main case is taken on board today itself.

CM-10322-CII-2026

The instant application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC is for impleadment of legal representatives of respondent No.3-Nikku Ram (since deceased).

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and legal representatives of respondent No.3-Nikku Ram (since deceased) i.e. Guddo, Ashok, Roda and Bittu are ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.3(i), 3(ii), 3(iii) & 3(iv), respectively.

Amended memo of parties is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

FAO-5168-2005

This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 25.07.2005 passed by MACT, Patiala (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.11 of 2003 vide which a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.5 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.HYJ-980 (for short ‘offending vehicle’).

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

“1. Whether claimants received injuries in road accident on 20.6.2000 in area of village Bhadaur and whether said accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo No. HYJ-980 by respondent No. 5, if so it s effect? OPP.

2. If issue No. 1 proved to what amount of compensation claimant entitled and from whom? OPP

3. Whether claim petition is not maintainable as alleged?OPR

4. Whether driver of vehicle No. HYJ was not holding valid and effective driving licence, if so its effect? OPR6

5. Whether claim petition bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties, if so its effect? OPR-6

6. Relief.”

Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondent No.6-Insurance Company.

Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Branch and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award.

The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment and enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.5 while driving offending vehicle and insurer was held liable to pay the compensation. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed.

It is pertinent to mention that in the heading of the Award, it is mentioned that the claim petition has been filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but the averments in the award are in respect of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of offending vehicle. Issue No.1 has also been framed by the Tribunal as to whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of th