KULDIP SINGH, J. - (1.) JASPREET Singh Mehta has filed this appeal against the award dated 30.8.2005, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short 'the Tribunal'), vide which the claim petition of the claimant/appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'), was dismissed.
(2.) THE case of the claimant/appellant before the Tribunal was that on 4.4.2002, at about 2:45 PM, while driving his Maruti car bearing No. PB - 65 -A -9620, he was going from Nangal to Mohali. When he reached near Focal Point, Chanalon, Near Sarpanch Dhaba, Tehsil Kharar, a white Contessa car bearing No. PB -12 -E -1027, being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2 -Sham Lal, came on the wrong side of the road while trying to overtake another car and struck against right side of the car of the claimant/appellant. As a result of the accident, claimant/appellant received injuries on his right pelvis, right elbow and right eye. Due to the accident, operation was done and plates were inserted in right pelvis and elbow. Five stitches were applied on right eye. Femur head of right side got distorted and blood vessels were badly damaged. Claimant/appellant received treatment from Dr. R. Sen and Dr. S.S. Gill of Department of Orthopaedics, PGI, Chandigarh. He is still under treatment. At the time of accident, claimant/appellant was 32 years of age. He has done Bachelor of Engineer in Industrial and Production and was working as a Surveyor with United India Insurance Company Ltd., New India Assurance Company Limited, National Insurance Company Limited and Oriental Insurance Company Limited. He was earning Rs. 60,000/ - per month. Claimant/appellant had spent an amount of Rs. 70,000/ - on his treatment.
(3.) PETITION was contested by respondents No. 1 and 2, who filed separate written statement. It was pleaded that accident took place due to negligent driving of the claimant. FIR No. 33 dated 4.4.2002 was registered against the claimant. Claimant was facing trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ropar, regarding the accident in question. It was stated that the said Contessa car was being driven by respondent No. 2 with due care. The accident took place due to negligent driving of car by the claimant. The accident was admitted, but claimant was blamed for the accident. From the pleadings, following issues were framed : - 1. Whether the respondent No. 2 by driving Contessa Car No. PB - 12 -E -1027 rashly and negligent caused the accident on 4.4.2002 resulting in injuries to the claimant ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom ? OPP. 3. Relief. ;