- (1.) This is an appeal brought by the claimants Arshdeep Kaur through her father Balram Singh, with Balram Singh as her co-appellant, challenging the award dated 24.4.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (for short, "the Tribunal") vide which an amount of Rs. 7,25,000/- was assessed as compensation in favour of the appellant but awarded half of it as she was also held negligent as her grand father, with whom .. she was crossing the road, failed to take necessary precautions and safety measures while making the child cross the road. Though this appeal has been brought challenging this aspect as also for enhancement of compensation, learned counsel for the appellants has pressed for the relief to the extent that the findings of contributory negligence should be reversed and the entire amount awarded as compensation should be allowed to the claimant-appellant, Arshdeep Kaur. The case as set up by the claimant is as under : On 25.9.2008, Arshdeep Kaur, a minor girl aged about 6/7 years, was coming from her school at about 12.30 O'clock in the day along with her grand father, Nachhattar Singh. When they were opposite the floor mill of Chinder Singh in the area of village Sandhwan, they were walking on the berm of the road and while the children were crossing the road, a truck bearing registration No.RJ-19-1G-0434 came there. It was driven in a rash and negligent manner by Jaspal Singh, respondent No.1 and had hit Arshdeep Kaur and crossed over her left foot. After first aid, she was referred to GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot where she remained admitted from 25.9.2008 to 31.10.2008. Her right leg had to be amputated there. The matter was reported to the police on 29.9.2008 on which, a case bearing FIR No. 181 of the said date was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Kotkapura for an offence punishable under sections 279/337 and 338 IPC. A sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. .. Jaspal Singh, who is both respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, has filed written statement denying the accident. He has also denied the claimant to have suffered any injury. The averments of the claimant in the petition have been termed as false.
(2.) Respondent No.3, the insurer, has denied the maintainability of the claim petition. It has been claimed that the claim petition is vague and incomplete. The averments of the claimants in the petition have been denied in reply on merits. The FIR is claimed to be false and frivolous. The involvement of the truck in question is denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Tribunal. 1. Whether on 25.09.2008, at 12.30 P.M. in the area of village Sandhwan, the claimant Arshdeep Kaur daughter of Balram Singh had suffered injuries on account of her accident with the offending truck being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently?OPP 2. Whether the claimant-injured is entitled to the grant of compensation, as prayed for, if so, to what amount and against whom? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident, if so, its effect? OPR (3) 4. Relief.
(3.) Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal has held the .. accident to have been an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the truck. However, it has reached the conclusion that the accident is an outcome of contributory negligence of the driver of the truck as well as the claimant, as her grand father failed to take necessary precautions and observe safety measures while making the child cross the road. Learned Tribunal assessed the compensation in a sum of Rs. 7,25,000/- but awarded half of it i.e. Rs. 3,62,500/- on account of the aforesaid finding on the negligence aspect.;