K.F. FAZALUDDIN FAROOQUI Vs. SHRI JAYANT MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the award dated 07-08-1999 passed in Claim Case No.179 of 1997 by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal'), for enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) It is not disputed that respondent No.2 is the registered owner of Jeep bearing registration No. MKT 396 and respondent No.1 was his employed driver. It was also admitted that respondent No.3 was the insurer of the vehicle and the insurance policy was effective from 17-04-1995 to 16-04- 1996. The appellant/applicant presented a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') before the Tribunal, Bhilai alleging that at about 7-00 p.m. on 09-07-199 when he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. MP 24 B 6397, the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No. MKT-396, driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently dashed the appellant causing him grievous injuries on his leg and body and his motorcycle was also damaged. An offence was registered against respondent No.1 in the Police Station Supela and he was charge sheeted. It was stated that the appellant suffered compound fracture of tibia and fibula bones of his left leg. He has undergone long treatment and several operations, even then, he has been disabled permanently. The appellant had a business of rubber factory in Devada, District Rajnandgaon. Because of his disability, he is unable to do any work and has lost his business. He had to spend a huge amount for his treatment and also incurred expenditure on travelling, assistance, special diet etc. It was prayed that compensation be awarded under the heads of treatment, expenditure on assistance, travelling and special diet, loss of business, future treatment etc.

(3.) Respondents No. 1 and 2, apart from the above facts, denied the contents of the claim petition and stated that it was the appellant himself who was driving negligently and dashed against the stationery jeep from behind and hence, he himself is responsible for this accident. Denying liability for compensation, they prayed for dismissal of the claim. Respondent No.3 categorically denied each and every averment in the claim petition and denied the liability to pay compensation to the appellant.