Jora Singh, J. - (1.) GURDEEP Singh, preferred this appeal against the award/order dated 31.3.2001, whereby claim petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, was dismissed.
(2.) THE case of the appellant, in brief, is that on 28.9.1994, he was returning from Delhi in bus No. DL -1P -1521. Bus was being driven rashly and negligently. Driver was requested to drive the bus with care and caution but continued to drive bus at a very high speed. When the bus was at a distance of eight kilometer from Hansi, then in the meantime, Haryana Roadways Bus No. HR -38 -1266 came from the side of Delhi which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 then both the buses had struck against each other. Accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. D.D.R. No. 9 dated 29.9.1994 was got recorded in Police Station Sadar, Hasni. In the accident, appellant received multiple grievous injuries and got admitted in Komet Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Pusa Road, New Delhi. Appellant was operated upon twice firstly on 29.9.1994 and then on 10.10.1994. Rs. 1,50,000/ - was spent on the treatment. Appellant was earning Rs. 5500/ - per month. Upon notice, respondent No. 1 filed written statement by denying all the allegations of the claimant. In fact, on 28.9.1994 respondent No. 1 was driving the bus of Haryana Roadways from Anupgarh to Delhi. When his bus reached near Garhi Minor i.e. about six kilometer away from Hansi, then truck No. HR -20A -6411 was seen in stationary condition. Suddenly, an animal came in front of the bus and to save that animal, bus was taken towards left side of the road and to avoid accident with the truck, bus was taken towards right side. In the meantime, bus Nos. DL -1P -1529 came from back side. Bus was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 6 and struck against the bus of respondent No. 1. Accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 1. In fact, the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. DL -1P -1529.
(3.) RESPONDENTS No. 2 and 3 filed separate written statement by denying all the allegations of the claimant. Respondent No. 7 filed separate written statement and contested the claim petition by pleading that bus No. DL -1P -1529 was not insured with the answering respondent. Then on, claim petition was got amended by changing the bus No. DL -1P -1529 to DL -1P -1521.;