VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J. - (1.) THIS is the first appeal of the claimants against the order dated 6.10.2009, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), Rewari, vide which an amount of Rs. 2,32,421/ - has been awarded to the appellant as compensation.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are as under: - On 30.09.2007, at about 11:00 am, the appellant was bringing his ailing mother to doctor for check up on his motor cycle bearing registration No. MH12DC -8212. When the claimant along with his mother reached the HUDA bye pass, he slowed down his motor cycle as his brother Pardeep was waiting there for them after attending his class at KLP College, Rewari. In the meanwhile, offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR 28A -5000 came from the opposite side which was driven in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed. It had hit the motor cycle of the appellant which brought him down. He suffered injuries and became unconscious. Brother of the appellant who was waiting for him brought him to General Hospital, Rewari, where from he was referred to Delhi but was taken to Pushpanjali Hospital, Gurgaon where he had taken treatment. He has claimed that a case was got registered for this accident vide FIR No. 300 dated 30.09.2007, under Sections 279/337 IPC at Police Station Model Town, Rewari against respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have denied the very accident to have taken place in the manner alleged by the appellant and their liability to pay compensation. Respondent No. 3 -M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. had contested the claim on the ground that respondent No. 1 did not have valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the said vehicle was not even insured at the time of accident.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: - 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 30.09.2007 within the jurisdiction of police station Model Town, Rewari due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. HR 28A -5000 by the respondent No. 1 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, what amount of the compensation, petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident? OPR 4. Relief.;