NAND LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(HPH)-1997-11-5
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on November 26,1997

NAND LAL Appellant
VERSUS
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SULEMAN REHIMARI MULANI AND ANR. V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
PARMINDER SINGH V. MUKATSAR JANTA COOPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY LTD. AND ANR. [REFERRED]
SANJAY KUMAR V. SHOKATALI AND ORS. [REFERRED]
PRADEEP GUPTA V. PANCHAM SINGH AND ORS. [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The appeal as well as the cross-objections are being disposed of by the present common judgment as they have arisen out of the same award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan on 5-8-1992.
(2.)The Appellant Sh. Nand Lai on 14.4.1989 at about 3.15 p.m. near Dharampur on Dharampur-Subathu Road sustained some injureies on his person on account of a Motor Accident alleged to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of Army Vehicle by Respondent No. 3. Case of the Appellant, as pleaded before the Tribunal, had been that on the aforesaid date he was coming to Dharampur from Subathu on his scooter and when he reached near Dharampur, an army truck being driven by Respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner while coming from the opposite side struck against the scooter of the Appellant, as a result of which the Appellant fell on the ground. According to the Appellant, the truck came on the wrong side of the road and scooter was dragged to some distance. The Appellant on account of this sustained multiple grievous injuries including fracture of right femur and nasal bone. The Appellant also sustained some head injury. The Appellant after getting first aid at District Hospital, Solan was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh, where he remained admitted as Indoor patient till 2-5-1989 and was discharged on 3-5-1989. Accoridng to the Appellant, even after discharge he remained confined to bed. The Appellant pleac(Sic) that he suffered permanent physical disability due to shortening of his right lec(Sic) According to him, he spent about Rs. 23,500/- on his treatment. The Appell(Sic) claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.
(3.)Respondents in a way have not denied the accident. But, according to them, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the Appellant himself. Rash and negligent driving on the part of Respondent No. 3 was contested. According to the Respondents, the Appellant was alleged to have not disputed his negligence and has furnished no damage claim to the Army Authorities. It was also pleaded that Court inquiry appointed by Respondent No. 1 also came to the conclusion that the accident took place not due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 3 but due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant. The compensation asked for has also been contested.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.