Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru' S.P. vs Ram Babu Yadav on 20 May, 2013
Author: Rakesh Tiwari
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari, Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 35
First Appeal From Order (D) No. 702 of 2013
State of U.P. through Superintendent of Police, Rama Bai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat).................................................................Appellant
versus
Ram Babu Yadav son of late Sri Bhaggi Lal, Resident of Gyatri Nagar, Pukhraya, Police Station Bhognipur, District Rama Bai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat)......................................Claimant-respondent
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
( By Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants on delay condonation application and on merit. Perused the impugned award.
The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 53 days. Having gone through the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application we find that the cause shown for delay in filing the appeal is sufficient. Delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay is allowed.
By means of this First Appeal From Order the appellant challenges the validity and correctness of the judgment and award dated 22.12.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Addl. District Judge, Court No.5, Rama Bai Nagar, in MACP No. 626 of 2010, Ram Babu Yadav versus State of U.P. Police through Superintendent of Police,Rama Bai Nagar, whereby a sum of Rs.5,04,995/- as compensation together simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till final payment of the awarded amount is made to the claimant-respondent.
The claimant-respondent preferred MACP No. 626 of 2010 aforesaid before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming Rs.31,00,000/- towards compensation on account of the injuries said to have been sustained by him in the accident in question. It was claimed that the accident causing injuries to him occurred when the motor cycle on which he was riding as pillion rider, was hit by police jeep no.U.P.-77, G.-0046. The claim was contested by the appellant by filing written statement denying the averments of the claim petition and stating that the alleged accident had not occurred with the said police jeep and that a false case has been registered by the claimant implicating it.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the evidence on record the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,04,995/- as compensation together with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the claimant-respondent with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation by the appellant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award dated 22.12.2012 the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
The contention of Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State of U.P., the appellant is that from perusal of documentary evidence on record as well as from the oral statements of D.W.1, namely, Yogendra Narayan Dubey and D.W.4 namely, Gulzar Singh, who had been driving the jeep it is fully established that the said jeep was not involved in the alleged accident and has been falsely implicated and that the Tribunal has illegally, arbitrarily and on the basis of surmises and conjectures has passed the impugned award, which is liable to be set aside.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of alleged accident the jeep in question was under the control of Sub-Inspector Sri Rakesh Chandra on patrol duty within the territorial jurisdiction of police station Amrahat whereas the alleged accident occurred in the territorial jurisdiction of police station Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat. It is stated that the Tribunal without application of mind and appreciation of the evidence on record has illegally held that the jeep in question was involved in the alleged accident, hence the said findings are erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
It is also stated that the claimant-respondent has failed to prove the disability certificate by examining the doctor and there is no injury report on record but the Tribunal on the basis of assumption has illegally awarded compensation against the appellant and that in any case the monthly income of the claimant has not been proved yet the Tribunal has awarded compensation by taking Rs.10,000/- as monthly income of the claimant-respondent. He concludes that because the claimant-respondent has failed to produce the medical bills etc. towards alleged medical expenses of Rs.1,79,995/-, therefore, the Tribunal has illegally awarded compensation of the aforesaid amount, hence in this view of the matter also, the award is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties has framed following 4 issues for deciding the case.
"01- D;k dfFkr nq?kZVuk fnukad 13-02-2009 dks le; djhc 09-00 cts jkf= LFkku f[kekiqj eksM pSd iksLV Fkkuk Hkksxuhiqj jekckbZ uxj esa pqVgy jkeckcw ;kno tks eksVj lkbfdy la[;k ;w0ih0&77] lh0&9806 esa ihNs cSBdj] ftls vkse izdk'k pyk jgk Fkk tk jgs Fks fd ihNs ls iqfyl thi la[;k ;w0ih0&77] th0&0046 ds pkyd us mijksDr thi dks rsth o ykijokgh ls pykdj VDdj ekj nh] ftlls jkeckcw ds 'kjhj esa dkQh pksVs vkbZ vkSj vkse izdk'k eksVj lkbfdy pkyd dh e`R;q gks x;hA 02- D;k okgu thi la[;k ;w0ih0&77] th0&0046 ds pkyd ds ikl ?kVuk ds fnukad 13-2-2009 dks oS/k ,oa izHkkoh pkyd vuqKfIr FkhA 03- D;k izLrqr ekeys esa i{kdkj cuk;s tkus esa vla;kstu dk nks"k gSA 04- ;g fd D;k oknh {kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ;fn gkW rks fdluh {kfriwfrZ rFkk fdl i{kdkj ls izkIr djsxkA "
The Tribunal on first issue considered the oral evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 produced by the appellant namely, Sub-Inspector Yogendra Narain Dubey and Constable Ramesh Chandra Tiwari. D.W. 1, SI. Yogendra Narain Dubey has stated that on 13.2.2009 he was posted as Sub-Inspector at police station Amrahat. On the fateful day at about 19.45 P.M. after making entry at G.D. No. 36, S.O. Sri Rakesh Chandra Tiwari and Constable Ramesh Chandra Tiwari along with driver Gulzar Singh, they all had gone on patrol duty on Jeep no. U.P.-77, G.-0046 in the jurisdiction of their police station i.e. Amrahat. They reached back at the police station at 2.45 A.M. after patrolling on 14.2.2009 and made entry in the G.D. on that date; that the jeep neither met with any accident on this date nor the said jeep was out of the jurisdiction of police station Amrahat, rather it was driven carefully and slowly throughout the patrolling by its driver. The statement of D.W.1, SI Sri Yogendra Narain Dubey reads thus:-
" fnukad 03-10-2012 uke m0fu0 Jh ;ksxsUnz ujk;.k nqcs lsok fuo`Rr@xzke fpjS;kiqj Fkkuk QQwWn ftyk vkSjS;kA 'kiFk c;ku djrk gWw fd eSa fnukad 13-2-2009 dks Fkkuk vejkgV dkuiqj nsgkr m0fu0 ds in ij rSukr FkkA ml fnu Fkkus ls lka; le; 1945 cts rh0Mh0 uEcj 36 ij ,l0vks0 Jh jkds'k pUnz frokjh o dk0 jes'k pUnz frokjh ds lkFk ljdkjh thi ua0& ;w0ih0 77&th&0046 pkyd xqytkj flag ds lkFk jokuk gksdj Fkkuk {ks= esa gh xLr djrs gq, fnukad 14-2-2009 dks jiV ua0&4 le; 02-45 ,0,e0 ij Fkkuk vejkgV ij okil igqapk Fkk ml fnu vejkgV dh mijksDr ljdkjh thi ls dksbZ Hkh nq?kZVuk ugh gqbZ Fkh vkSj u gh bl chp mijksDr thi Fkkuk vejkgV dh {ks= ls ckgj ugh x;h FkhA thi dk0 Mªkboj xqytkj flag pyk jgs FksA xkMh lko/kkuh ls ,oa /khjs&/khjs pyk jgs FksA bl xkMh ls dfFkr nq?kZVuk okgu la0 ;w0ih0&77&th&0046 ls ugh gqbZ FkhA &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& ftjg ;kph esjs cksyus ij is'kdkj }kjk lqudj rLnhd fd;kA c;ku vafdr fd;k x;kA ;ksxsUnz ujk;.k nqcs ¼,l-vkbZ-½ ¼gLrk{kj viBuh;½ fnukad 03-10-2012 vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k dksVZ la[;k&5] dkuiqj nsgkrA"
D.W.2, Constable Ramesh Chandra Tiwari in his statement also reiterated the same fact as stated by SI Sri Yogendra Narain Dubey, D.W.1. His statement reads thus:-
" fnukad 03-10-2012 uke&dk0 244 jes'k pUnz frokjh U;kf;d lEeu lSy dkuiqj nsgkr l'kiFk c;ku djrk gWw fd eSa fnukad 13-02-2009 dks Fkkuk vejkgV dk0ns0 eSa vkj{kh ds in ij rSukr FksA 13-2-2009 dks 'kke 19-45 cts ljdkjh thi la[;k%;w0ih0&77&th&0046 ls ,l0vks0 jkds'k pUnz frokjh o ,l0vkbZ0 ;ksxsUnz ukjk;.k nqcs o Mªkboj xqytkj ds lkFk Fkkuk {ks= esa x'r ds fy;s jokuk gqvk FkkA vkSj fnukad 14-02-2009 dks le; 2-45 ,0,e0 okil Fkkus vk;sA bl chp mijksDr thi Fkkuk {ks= ds cgkj ugh x;s FkhA dfFkr nq?kZVuk la[;k%;w0ih0&77&th0&0046 ls ugh gq;h FkhA esjs cksyus ij is'kdkj }kjk lqudj rLnhd fd;kA c;ku vafdr fd;k x;kA dk0 244 jes'k pUnz frokjh vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k dksVZ la0&5] dkuiqj nsgkrA "
D.W.3, SI, Sri Rakesh Chandra Tiwari was posted as S.O. at P.S. Amrahat, who in his oral evidence before the Court stated that on 13.2.2009 at about 7.45 P.M. he along with SI Sri Yogendra Narain Dubey and Constable Ramesh Chandra Tiwari had gone on patrol duty in the aforesaid jeep; that they came back at police station on 14.2.2009 at 2.45 P.M.; that they had patrolled in villages Mahtauli, Tutwapur, Maheshpur and Ghatawara. He also stated that the said jeep had not gone beyond the jurisdiction and area of the police station Amrahat. The statement of D.W.3 SI, Sri Rakesh Chand Tiwari is as under:-
^^xokg dk uke jkds'k pUnz frokjh m0fu0 orZeku esa Fkkuk th0vkj0ih0 Qrsgiqj esa lliFk c;ku fd;k fd%& fnukad 13-2-2009 dks eSa Fkkuk vejkgV dkuiqj nsgkr esa rSukr FkkA bl fnu eSa Fkkus ls 07-45 ih-,e- ij fudyk FkkA xkMh la0 ;w0ih0&77 th0&0046 ljdkjh thi ls e; gejkgh m0fu0 ;ksxsUnz ujk;u nqcs dk0 jes'k pUnz frokjh thi pkyd dk0 xqytkj flag ds lkFk jokuk gq, FksA ge xLr djrs gq, fnukad 14-2-2009 dks le; 2-45 ,0,e0 ij Fkkuk okil vk;s FksA okgu ljdkjh thi Fkkuk {ks= ds ckgj ugh x;h FkhA izfr ijh{kk }kjk viBuh; okilh th-Mh- ua-&04 gSA eq>s ;kn ugh gS fd th-Mh- esa fdl&fdl xkWo esa x;sA mudk mYys[k gS vFkok ugh ;g ckr lgh gS okgu la[;k% ;w0ih0&77th0&0046 fnukad% 13-2-2009 dks 'kke ukS cts Fkkus esa ugh FkhA dk0 xqytkj flag esjs pkyd ugh Fkk] pkyd FkkA esjs Fkkus dh thi pykrk FkkA tgkW&tgkW eSa dgrk FkkA ogkW ysdj tkrk FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd xqytkj flag ljdkjh thi la[;k% ;w0ih0&77 th0&0046 dk pkyd FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd pkyd xqytkj flag }kjk thi la[;k% ;w0ih0&77th0&0046 dks rsth o ykijokgh ls pykrs gq, eks0lk0 la[;k%;w0ih0&77 lh0 9806 ls VDdj ekjhA ftlls nq?kZVuk ?kfVr gqbZA rFkk nq?kZVuk esa jkeckcw rFkk vkseizdk'k pqVgy gq,A ;g Hkh dguk xyr gS fd xqytkj flag ls ekrfgr gksus ds dkj.k lgh xokgh ugh ns jgk gSA xokg }kjk cksyus ij c;ku vafdrA lqudj rLnhd fd;kA ,0Mh0ts0&05 jekckbZ uxjA fnukad 25-10-2012"
D.W.4, Gulzar Singh has reiterated the same fact as stated by SI Sri Yogendra Narain Dubey, D.W.1. His statement reads thus:-
"fnukad 06-11-2012 uke xqytkj Mk0 lsokfuo`Rr fuoklh xzke vu/kkSjk iksLV o ftyk tkykSu lliFk c;ku djrk gWw fd fnukad 13-09-2002 dks yxHkx 9-00 cts thi la[;k% ;w0ih0&77th0&0046 ls Fkkuk {ks= esa xLr gsrq fudkyk FkkA thi esa esjs cxy esa vxyh lhV ij Jh jkds'k pUnz frokjh ,l0vks0 o ;ksxsUnz ujk;.k frokjh m0fu0 dk0 jes'k pUnz frokjh thi esa ihNs cSBs FksA xLr djds fnukad 14-02-2009 le; 2-00 djhc jkr esa Fkkus okil vk;k FkkA xLr esa xkMh egVkSyh] rqrokiqj] egs'kiqj rFkk ?kkVkikjk vkfn xkWo esa x;k FkkA eSa viuh xkMh vejkgV ds vUnj xLr esa x;h FkhA Fkkus {ks= ds ckgj xkM+h ugh x;h FkhA esjh xkM+h ls dksbZ nq?kZVuk ugh gqbZ FkhA oknh dk dguk xyr fd dfFkr nq?kZVuk esjh xkM+h ls gqbZ FkhA xyr gSA esjh xkM+h ls dfFkr nq?kZVuk ugh gqbZ FkhA &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&0&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& eSa vkSj Hkh xkWo egVkSyh rqrokiqj] egs'kiqj] ?kVkikjk ds vykok vkSj xkWo esa Hkh x;kA ysfdu xkWo ds uke eq>s ;kn ugh gSA eq>s ugh ekywe fd esjs f[kykQ Hkksxuhiqj dksVZ esa eqdnek py jgk gSA ;w0ih0&77th0&0046 dk Mªkboj fnukad% 13-02-2009 dks eSa gh FkkA fnukad 13-02-2009 dks 9-00 yxHkx ds vxys fnu 2-00 cts lqcg rd Fkkuk ifjlj esa thi ugh jghA eq>s ;kn ugh gS fd fdl th-Mh- ua- ls Fkkus esa vken xkMh dh gqbZA xqytkj flag esjs lkeus vkt xkM+h dh ykd cqd ugh gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSus thi la[;k%;w0ih0&77th0&0046 dks rsth o ykijokgh ls pykrs gq, fnukad 13-02-2009 dks le; 9-00 cts jkf= esa eks0lk0 ua0%;w0ih0&77] lh0&9806 esa VDdj ekjhA ftlls jke ckcw ;kno o vkse izdk'k ?kk;y gq,A ,e0,0 ,DV@,0Mh0ts0&05 lqudj rLnhd fd;kA dkuiqj nsgkr xqytkj flag fnukad 06-11-2012 On behalf of the claimant, Gyan Singh was examined as witness no.2, who stated that he had noted the number of the jeep, which was being driven by its driver and there was no one else besides him inside the jeep.
The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record found that the oral evidence of police witnesses was not reliable as they avoided to give the names of the villages where they had gone and had only mentioned the names of few of them stating that they do not remember in which other village they had gone for patrolling. The reason given for disbelieving the police witnesses was that they could not prove their statements from the G.D. of the police station which was not produced in the Court. Even the log book of the vehicle in question was not produced from which it could have been established as to which places/villages the vehicle in question went in the intervening night of 13.2.2009 and 14.2.2009 between 9.00 P.M. and 2.45 P.M. respectively. Per contra, the eye witness of the claimant had seen driver Gulzar Singh driving the jeep alone near the place of accident. This might be that the driver had taken the jeep himself and the other police witnesses were not even with him. This finds support from the statement of Constable Gulzar Singh, the driver of the jeep, D.W.4 who stated that-
^^eSa vkSj Hkh xkWo egVkSyh] rrqokiqj] egs'kiqj] ?kuokjk ds vykok vkSj xkWo esa Hkh x;k ysfdu xkWo ds uke Hkh ;kn ugh gSA eq>s ugh ekywe fd esjs f[kykQ Hkksxuhiqj dksVZ esa eqdnek py jgk gSA^^ From the above it also appears that this witness has also given incorrect statement before the Tribunal in this regard as has observed in the judgment thus:-
^^bl lk{kh dk ;g dFku bl ekeys ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fo'oluh; ugh gS tc eqdnek vijk/k la0 49@2009 iathd`r gqvk gSA rc iqfyl thi dk mlesa mYys[k fd;k x;kA Fkkuk Hkksxuhiqj dh iqfyl ds }kjk ekeys dh foospuk gqbZ gSA foospd ds }kjk uD'kk utjh Hkh cuk;k x;k gSA U;k;ky; U;kf;d eftLVsªV Hkksxuhiqj }kjk vius vkns'k ls vfHk;qDr dk0 xqytkj flag dks fopkj.k gsrq U;k;ky; esa ryc fd;k x;k vkSj vijk/k dk laKku fy;k x;k gSA ;g vkns'k fnukad 10-11-2009 gSA lk{kh dk lk{; yxHkx 03 o"kZ i'pkr fnukad 6-11-2012 dks ekeys esa yk;k x;k gS vkSj lk{kh dgrk gS fd mls Hkksxuhiqj dksVZ esa py jgs eqdn~nesa dh dksbZ tkudkjh ugh gSA bl lk{kh dk ekSf[kd lk{; Lo;a bl rF; ds LFkkfir gks tkus ds i'pkr lansgkLin gks x;kA oLrqr% ;g lk{kh U;k;ky; esa lR; ugh cksy jgk gSA ;g lk{kh thi la[;k ;w0ih0&77] th0 0046 dk pkyd gSA nq?kZVuk ds fnukad 13-2-2009 Fkkuk vejkgV esa rSukr Hkh jgk gSA thi ljdkjh dk mYys[k djrs gq;s izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ vafdr gqvk gSA U;kf;d eftLVsV] Hkksxuhiqj] dkuiqj nsgkr }kjk fnukad 10-11-2009 dks Li"V vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq;s vfHk;qDr xqytkj flag dks /kkjk 279] 338] 304, Hkk-n-la- ds vijk/k ds fy;s U;k;ky; esa fopkj.k ds fy;s ryc fd;k x;kA vfUre fjiksVZ 49@2009 dks fujLr fd;k x;k] bl ij Hkh lk{kh dk vius fo:) eq0v0la0 49@2009 ds iathd`r gksus vkSj Hkksxuhiqj dksVZ esa dsl la0 2031@2009 ds pyus ls badkj djuk bl ckr dks LFkkfir djus okyk rF; gS fd bl lk{kh dk ekSf[kr lk{; nq?kZVuk ds lEcU/k esa fo'okl fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugh gSA"
There is no enmity between the claimant and the appellant. Rather, this observation that public normally does not want to say anything against the police and the accident must have given some courage to the appellant to report the truth by filing claim immediately after the accident in which the number of the jeep has clearly been stated. Considering all these facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal found the police jeep in question to be involved in the accident.
The Tribunal while deciding issue nos. 2 and 3 also found that the driver of the aforesaid jeep was having a valid licence and that the claim application does not suffer from any illegality. On issue no.4, the Tribunal on the basis of document found that the age of the claimant was between 55 to 60 years. Accordingly multiplier of '8' would be applicable for the purposes of determination of compensation according to Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. As regards the income of the claimant is concerned, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has wrongly computed the compensation taking the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- is incorrect as the Tribunal found that the claimant had filed income tax return of the year 2008 showing income to be Rs.1,11,696/-. It was a public document. This document was read by the Tribunal along with the statement of the claimant that he was earning between Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-from his work as contractor, therefore, taking lower side of the income the Tribunal has rightly assessed income of the claimant to be about Rs.10,000/- per month.
The question of age of the injured at the time of accident and his monthly income from the work of contractor has been discussed by the Tribunal in its judgment thus:-
^^U;k;kf/kdj.k dks ;g fuf'pr djuk gksrk gS fd LFkkbZ fodykaxrk ds mijkUr Hkh og D;k dk;Z djus esa le{k gS vkSj D;k dk;Z djus esa v{ke gSA nwljs pj.k esa ;g ns[kuk gksrk gS fd migr O;fDr dk O;olk; D;k gS] mlds dk;Z djus dh izd`fr nq?kZVuk ds igys D;k Fkh vkSj mldh mez D;k FkhA rhljs pj.k esa ;g ns[kuk gksrk gS fd D;k ;kph fdlh Hkh izdkj dh thodksiktZu vftZr djus ds fy;s v{ke gS ;k LFkkbZ fodykaxrk ds mijkUr Hkh og ml dk;Z dks izHkkoh rjhds ls fu"ikfnr dj ldrk gS] ftls og nq?kZVuk ls igys dj jgk Fkk ;k nq?kZVuk ds iwoZ lEikfnr fd;k tk jgs dk;Z dks lEikfnr djus esa mls dksbZ dfBukbZ vk;sxh ;k og nq?kZVuk ls iwoZ fd;s gq;s dk;Z dks dqN de {kerk ds lkFk djrk jg ldrk gSA mijksDr of.kZr fof/kd fl)kUrksa ds vkyksd esa vc ge izLrqr ekeys ds rF; ,oa lk{; ij fopkj djrs gq;s ;kph ds vuqrks"k ds lEcU/k esa foospuk djrs gSA loZizFke fcUnq ;g gS fd nq?kZVuk ds le; ;kph dh vk;q D;k FkhA ;kfpdk esa ;kph dh vk;q izLrj ua0&03 esa 50 o"kZ nf'kZr dh x;h gSA vfHkys[kh; 22x fpfdRlh; nLrkost fnukafdr 1-10-2011 dks fpfdRlkf/kdkjh lh0,p0lh0 ij n'kkZ;k ds fpfdRld }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k gS] mlesa ;kph dh vk;q yxHkx 57 o"kZ ?kVuk ds fnukad 13-2-2009 dks nf'kZr gSA dk;kZy; eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh jekckbZ uxj ds ;gkW ls fodykaxrk cksMZ }kjk fuxZr fodykaxrk izek.k i= dkxt la[;k&22x@2 ] tks fnukad 20-1-2011 dks tkjh fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa ;kph jkeckcw ;kno dh vk;q yxHkx 52 o"kZ crykbZ xbZ gSA jhtsUlh vLirky dkuiqj ds ipsZ 30x@1 esa migfr ;kph jkeckcw ;kno dh vk;q 60 o"kZ nf'kZr gS vkSj tc lk{kh dk 'kiFk i= fnukad 13-3-2012 dks lk{; vafdr gqvk gS rc mlus viuh vk;q 50 o"kZ crykbZ gSA vk;q lEcU/kh vU; dksbZ vfHkys[k U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr ugh gqvk gSA migfr ds vk;q ds lEcU/k esa izfroknh i{k us Hkh dksbZ vU;Fkk dFku ugh fd;k gSA vk;q lEcU/kh tks fHkUu&fHkUu rF; U;k;ky; ds le{k vk;s gS os yxHkx vk;q ds lEcU/k esa gSA vk;q dk fuf'pr vkdyu ugh fd;k tk ldrkA vk;q lEcU/kh tks rF; lkeus vk;s gS muesa lko/kkuh dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s vkSlr vk;q fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA vr% U;k;kf/kdj.k ;kph migr dh vk;q 57 o"kZ vFkkZr 55 ls 60 o"kZ vk;q oxZ ds lewg esa vigr dh vk;q fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk mfpr ikrk gWwA vf/kfu;e ds f}rh; lwph ds vuqlwph ds vuqlkj 55 ls 60 o"kZ ds lewg ds fy;s 08 dk xq.kkad fu/kkZfjr gS tks bl ekeyh esa Hkh izHkkoh gksxkA vc gesa ;kph dh nq?kZVuk ds le; vk;q ij fopkj djuk gSA ;kfpdk esa dgk x;k gS fd nq?kZVuk fnukad 13-02-2009 dks vkSj ;kfpdk ds izLrj&07 esa ;kph dh izfrekg vk; ml gtkj :i;s crkbZ x;h gSA ;kfpdk ds izLrj&23 esa dFku fd;k x;k fd vigr ljdkjh dkUVªSDVj Fkk vFkkZr lafonk ij dk;Z djrk FkkA izfroknh }kjk izfrokn i= ds izLrj&23 esa ;kph dh vk;q vFkok mlds ljdkjh dkUVsªDVj ds dFku ds lEcU/k esa dqN Hkh ugh dgk x;k gSA migfr ;kph us ;kph la[;k&01 ds :i esa tc viuk ekSf[kd lk{; U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k gS rc mlus dgk gS fd ^^eSa Bsdsnkjh dk dke djrk Fkk^^ esjh vkenuh nl gtkj ls chl gtkj rd Fkh^^ ;kph lk{kh la[;k&02 Kku flag iq= egkohj flag] tks ;kph jkeckcw ;kno dks lkekU; :i ls tkurk gS] mlus dgk gS ^^ jkeckcw ;kno fuoklh xk;=h uxj iq[kjk;kW dks gYdk&gYdk tkurk gWwA V~;wcsy o cksfjax dh Bsdsnkjh dk dke djrs gSA ^^;kph us izkFkZuk i= 50 x ls vk; ds lEcU/k esa vfHkys[kh; lk{; 50x@2 vk;dj fjVZu o"kZ 2008 dh QksVks izfr] 50x@3 vk;dj vf/kfu;e 1961 dh /kkjk&143 ¼1½ ds v/khu lwpuk dh ewy izfr QkeZ ua- 16 , dh ewy izfr 50x@4] 50x@5 eSllZ Lojkt V~;wcsyl dEiuh }kjk fuxZr bude lEcU/kh nLrkost dh ewy izfr dks izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ftu ij izfroknh i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us dsoy vkifRr 'kCn fy[kk gSA esjs }kjk bu vfHkys[kh; lk{; dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ;g yksx nLrkost gSA vk;dj foHkkx ls lEcfU/kr gSA 50x@2 jkeckcw ;kno }kjk vkx.ku o"kZ 2008&09 ds fy;s izLrqr vk;dj fjVZu dk nLrkost gSA ftl ij vk;dj vf/kdkjh dh eqgj yxh gS vkSj 22 ebZ 2008 dk ;g izLrqr fd;k x;k vfHkys[k vk;dj vf/kdkjh jkeLo:i }kjk gLrk{kfjr gS vkSj vk;dj vkx.ku o"kZ 2008&09 ls lEcfU/kr gSA fnukad 30-09-2008 dks ;g vk;dj fjVZu nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA 50x@4 QkeZ 16, gsA 50x@5 vk; dk vkx.ku gSA 50 x@2 jkeckcw ;kno }kjk izLrqr vkx.ku dh izkfIr gS] mlds vuqlkj foRrh; o"kZ esa ldy vk; 1]11]696@& :i;k vafdr gSA blh vk; ds vk/kkj ij vk;dj dh x.kuk gksrh gSA ;kph dk ekSf[kd lk{; vkSj ;g vfHkys[kh; lk{; tc tc ,d lkFk i<+k tkrk gS rc ;kph dh vk; nq?kZVuk ds le; nl gtkj :i;s izfrekg lk{; ls LFkkfir gksrh gSA U;k;kf/kdj.k mijksDr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij nq?kZVuk ds le; ;kph dh ekfld vk; Bsdsnkjh ds dk;Z ls nl gtkj :i;s izfrekg fu/kkZfjr djuk U;k;ksfpr ikrk gSA "
As regards disability is concerned, the Tribunal found that immediately after the accident the injured was taken at about 9.20 P.M. to Primary Health Centre, Pukhraya from where he was referred to Regency Hospital, Kanpur. He was admitted there on 13.2.2009 from about 11.33 P.M. and was discharged on 5.3.2009. The disability certificate was issued by the Chief Medical Officer and a member of the Medical Board, Rama Bai Nagar, which shows that the injured has suffered 40% permanent disability. This certificate also contains the photograph of the injured showing his leg as denatured. The relevant findings in this regard read thus:-
"nq?kZVuk ds QyLo:i ;kph dks dkfjr migfr ls fdl izdkj dh fodykaxrk dkfjr gqbZ gS] bl fcUnq ij tks lk{; U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k vk;h gS] og bl izdkj gS] nq?kZVuk fnukad 13-02-2009 ds jkf= ukS cts ?kfVr gqbZA fpfdRlkf/kdkjh lh0,p0lh0 iq[kjk;kW }kjk fuxZr izek.k i= 22x bl ckr dk lk{; gS fd nq?kZVuk ds rqjUr ckn le; 09-20 cts migr dks izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz iq[kjk;k esa izLrqr fd;k x;k] tgka ls mls ,y0,y0vkj0,e0 vLirky ds fy;s lUnfHkZr fd;k x;k vkSj ;kph us ekSf[kd lk{; esa dgk gS fd thou j{kk ds fy;s mls rFkk nwljs migr vkse izdk'k dks jhtsUlh vLirky] dkuqij uxj esa HkrhZ djk;k x;kA jhtsUlh vLirky fyfeVsM] dkuiqj dk vfHkys[k lwph 29x ls 30x@1 gSA ;kph dks fnukad 13-2-2009 dks jkf= 11-33 ih0,e0 ij jhtsUlh vLirky esa HkrhZ fd;k x;k gS vkSj fnukad 05-03-2009 dks ;kph dks vLirky ls mipkj ds mijkUr fMLpktZ fd;k x;k gSA dk;kZy; eq[; fpfdRlkf/kdkjh] jekckbZ uxj ds ;gkW ls v/;{k fodykaxrk cksMZ] eq[; fpfdRlkf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr ewy vfHkys[k dkxt la[;&22x@2 i=koyh ij gSA nkfgus iSj esa 40 izfr'kr LFkkbZ fodykaxrk nf'kZr gSA ;kph dk QksVksxzkQj bl fodykaxrk izek.k i= esa gSA nkfgus iSj dh fVfc;k nq?kZVukxzLr gks x;h gS vkSj iSj esa fod`r gks x;h gSA ;kph us vius ekSf[kd lk{; esa dgk gS fd eSa fodykax gks x;k gWw dk;kZy; eq[; fpfdRlkf/kdkjh jekckbZ uxj fn;s x;s fodykax dk izek.k i= fnukafdr 20-10-2010 ds vuqlkjh esjh 40 izfr'kr fodykaxrk izek.k i= i=koyh esa layXu gSA eSa Bsdsnkjh dk dke djrk FkkA esjh vkenuh nl gtkj :i;s ls chl gtkj rd Fkh ysfdu nq?kZVuk ds ckn esjh dksbZ vkenuh ugh jg x;h gSA ^^fodykaxrk lEcU/kh ekSf[kd lk{; esa fn;s x;s mijksDr dFku ij izfroknh i{k }kjk dksbZ izfrijh{kk ugh dh x;h gSA ekSf[kd ,oa izys[kh; lk{; dks tc ge ,d lkFk ns[krs gS rc ;g LFkkfir gksrk gS fd ;kph ds 'kjhj dk dksbZ vax dVk ugh gsA nkfguk iSj vR;f/kd {kfr xzLr gqvk gS vkSj iSj esa fod`r vk x;h gSA nkfgus iSj dh ;g fodykaxrk 40 izfr'kr gSA fod`r iSj esa gS rFkk ;kph 55 ls 60 o"kZ vk;q oxZ dk O;fDr gSA vr% bl fu"d"kZ ij tkus esa dksbZ dfBukbZ ugh gS fd ;kph vc lkekU; :i ls iwjh {kerk ds lkFk pyus&fQjus esa vkSj thou dh Hkkx nkSM+ djus esa vleFkZ gqvk gSA ;kph Bsdsnkjh dk dke djrk gSA Bsdsnkjh dk dk;Z dsoy fujh{k.k dk dk;Z ugh gS vfirq blesa dkQh Hkkx&nkSM+ djrh iMrh gS vkSj tc ;kph ;g dgrk gS fd nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k vkbZ fodykaxrk dh otg ls vc mldh dksbZ vkenuh ugh jg xbZ gS rc ;g vfr'kksfDriw.kZ fd;k x;k dFku rks gS ijUrq ;g Hkh lgh gS fd iSj dh LFkkbZ fod`fr nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k mlds Bsdsnkjh ds dk;Z dh izd`fr dks ns[krs gq;s dkQh gn rd izHkkfor gqvk gS ijUrq ,slk ugh fd og dk;Z djus esa vleFkZ gks x;k gksA 40 izfr'kr LFkkbZ fodykaxrk ds vfHkys[k o izfroknh i{k us Hkh dksbZ pqukSrh ugh nh gSA bl ekeys ds rF;ksa ;kph dh vk;q vkSj mlds iSj esa vkbZ fod`fr esa fopkj ds mijkUr ;kph lEiw.kZ 'kjhj ds lkis{k fodykaxrk 30 izfr'kr fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk mfpr ikrk gWwA fodykaxrk ds izfr'kr dks fu/kkZfjr djus ds i'pkr vc ;g fu/kkZfjr djuk gS fd bl 30 izfr'kr LFkkbZ fodykaxrk dk bl migr ;kph dh okLrfod vk; {kerk ij D;k izHkko iM+kA ;kph dh vk;q 57 o"kZ gS vkSj ;kph Bsdsnkjh dk dk;Z djrk Fkk iSj esa LFkkbZ fod`fr mRiUu gqbZ gS] ftlls mlds lkekU; thou esa gh ugh vfirq Hkkx nkSM+ dk dk;Z djus Hkh vleFkZ gSA migr Lo;a dgrk gS fd Bsdsnkjh dk dk;Z ugh dj ikrk gS] mldh vk; lekIr gks xbZ gSA ;kph dks ftl rjhd ls migfr dkfjr gqbZ gS] mlds n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s ;g U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gS fd migr ds 'kjhj ds lkis{k 30 izfr'kr LFkkbZ fodykaxrk] ftlls nkfgus iSj esa fod`fr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s ;g LFkkfir gksrk gS fd vc ;g vius Bsdsnkjh ds dk;Z dks iwjh 'kkjhfjd {kerk ds lkFk djus esa vleFkZ gS vkSj mldh leqfpr vk; ij izHkko 30 izfr'kr fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk U;k;kf/kdj.k mfpr ikrk gSA"
The argument vehemently advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimant suffered simple fracture of tibia bone of his right leg. Therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the medical certificate showing 40% disability in his right leg. After the simple fracture is healed, the injured could have worked the profession of contractor normally.
Considering the statement of the claimant that after the accident his income is reduced to zero and the fact that he was not cross-examined on this point, the Tribunal has accepted 40% disability as certified by the Medical Board. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the claimant suffered 30% disability in comparison to the whole of the body and has awarded compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- and expenses in medical treatment at Rs.1,79,995/- total amounting to Rs. 5,04,995/- directing the State of U.P. to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation through the Superintendent of Police, Rama Bai Nagar. Thus, from perusal of the award we find that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant has no force. The Tribunal has given cogent and valid reasons for disbelieving the evidence of witnesses produced by the police department in support of its case. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award.
For all the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed.
Dated 20.5.2013 CPP/-