Uttarakhand High Court
Girish Singh Bisht vs Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & ... on 20 November, 2019
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No. 195 of 2015
Girish Singh Bisht ....Appellant
Versus
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & others
.......Respondents
Present:-Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate,
for respondent no.1.
Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma,
Advocate, for respondent no.3.
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the judgment and award dated 24.01.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udham Singh Nagar in MACP No. 77 of 2010, by which the claim petition of the claimant/appellant has been dismissed.
2. This is a claimant's appeal. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was traveling in the bus of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation on 14.08.2009 and was coming from "Delhi" to "Haldwani". While the bus reached "Bilaspur" another vehicle which was coming from the other side hit with the bus on its side, as a result of which, the appellant who was a passenger, sustained injuries on his right hand, which had later to be amputated. The appellant has also been declared 60% disabled.
23. The appellant thereafter approached the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for compensation. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the appellant was admittedly traveling with his right hand outside the window of the bus and consequently the injury were caused by another vehicle which was coming from the other side. There is no fault of either the bus driver of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation or the driver of other vehicle, and it was due to the negligence on the part of the passenger that the accident had occurred. This finding of the Tribunal was based on the evidence of the conductor that the right hand of the claimant was outside the window of the bus. Consequently, the claim of the appellant was rejected by the Tribunal. Aggrieved the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court.
4. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the court below, which is well reasoned and based on the evidence but considering the fact that the appellant has lost his hand and has become 60% disabled, the Tribunal would have granted the compensation to the claimant/appellant on no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under:-
"140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.--(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.3
(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of [fifty thousand rupees] and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of [twenty-five thousand rupees].
(3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement.
[(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force:
Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable 4 under this section or under section 163A.]"
5. Since in this case a permanent disability is caused, let an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) be given to the claimant on no fault liability, along with an interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum, which shall be calculated from the date of incident.
6. Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.3 very fairly submits that the amount will be deposited with the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within a period of three weeks. After the said amount is deposited by the appellant, let the same be disbursed to the claimant/appellant forthwith.
7. In view of the above, appeal is partly allowed.
8. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied within twenty-four hours on payment of usual charges.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 20.11.2019 Nitesh/