Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nain Dev vs Balwinder Singh on 5 October, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2003ACJ716
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J.
1. This F.A.O. filed by Shri Nain Dev, has been directed against the award dated 6.6.1996 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, who, dismissed the claim petition of the appellant, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed against the driver, owner and the Insurance Company of Vehicle No. PB-06-2127.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant Nain Dev was employed as Supervisor in Classic Carpets, Jagadhri and on the date of occurrence, he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 2500/-. The accident took place on 2.12.1992. The claimant was travelling in a truck No. HRO-2-5284 being driven by its driver Naurat Singh. The appellant started his journey from Jagadhri at about 6.00 P.M. and he was proceeding to Delhi in that truck. At about 10 P.M. when the said truck reached near A-l Hotel on Namestay Chowk G.T. Road Kamal, a truck bearing registration No. PB-06-2127 being driven by respondent No. 1 came from the side of Delhi. According to the claimant, the said truck was being driven rashly and negligently and on a very hectic speed. The said truck was coming on the wrong side of the road and struck against Truck No. HR 02-5284 in which the claimant was travelling. In this manner, the accident took place. The claimant sustained severe injuries on its entire body. Initially, he was admitted to Civil Hospital, Karnal, from where he was shifted to a private hospital, Kamal and thereafter, shifted to a private Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. According to the claimant, the accident was caused by respondent No. 1 while driving truck No. PB-06-2127 in rash and negligent manner.
3. On the above allegations, the claimant-appellant has claimed a sum of Rs. 3 lacs as compensation against the respondents.
4. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement and denied the allegations stating that the claimant has no locus standi to file the claim petition; that it is barred by limitation and that the appellant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the claim petition.
5. On merits, it was also denied by respondents No. 1 and 2 that the appellant suffered any injury or disability. Respondent No. 3 did not contest the claim petition despite service and was proceeded ex parte.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the accident in question was the result of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. PB-06/2127 by its driver Balwinder Singh respondent No. 1 as alleged ? OPP.
2. Whether the claimant received injuries in the said accident if so, to what extent ana to what effect ? OPP
3. To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and from whom ? OPP
4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable ? OPR
5. Whether the claim petition is time barred ? OPR
6. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the petition ?
7. Relief.
7. The claimant appeared as his own witness as PW1 and tendered into evidence MLR as Ex.P1, copy of FIR Ex.P.2 and copy of site plan Ex.P3.
8. On the contrary, respondents No. 1 and 2 did not lead any evidence and closed the case. The learned Tribunal for the reasons given in the impugned award dismissed the claim petition by holding that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent act of respondent No. I and further the bald statement of the appellant besides the medico-legal report, cannot be relied upon in order to grant the compensation. Resul-tantly, vide impugned order dated 6.6.1996 the claim petition was dismissed.
9.1 have heard Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Suman Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.
10. This Court is not inclined to set aside the finding of Tribunal on issue No. 1 for the reasons that the bald statement of the appellant cannot be relied upon when he has not examined the driver of the truck in which he was travelling. No other eye witness has been examined. In theses circumstances, I affirm the finding of the Tribunal on issue No,.1.
11. While deciding issue No. 2 against the appellant, it was observed by the Tribunal in para No. 12 of the award, as follows :-
"In order to prove issue No. 2, the claimant himself stepped into witness box and tendered into evidence a copy of MLR. He has not even examined the doctor who medico-legally examined him. Not only that he has not even produced any record of his treatment, mere bald statement of the claimant that he received many injuries does not substitute the other proof in the nature of medical evidence. In the absence of any other evidence issue No. 2 is also decided against the claimant."
12. Shri Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 submitted that no expert witness has been examined by the appellant. So much so, the doc-tor who prepared the medico-legal report, has not been produced. There is no x-ray report. The counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 further submitted that there is no evidence prima facie on the record to show that appellant had suffered permanent disability so as to justify his claim under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
13. It is true that the appellant did not examine the doctor to prove the medico-legal report and doctor was the best person to say what was the extent and nature of the injury of the appellant and also whether the injury suffered by the appellant was permanent disability or otherwise.
1A. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant subm itted that even in the absence of the doctor this claim petition has to be allowed in view of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He submitted that there is enough evidence on the record to suggest that the appellant suffered injury in such a manner that his four teeth broke down and this amounts a permanent disability and in these circumstances, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation on account of permanent disability apart from interest. In support of this contention he relied upon Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act which lays down as follows :-
"140. Liability tapay 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, me 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.
(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 lhat the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this Section or under Section 163A." 15. The reading of the above provisions would show that these provisions are independent from Section 160 of the Molor Vehicles Act. Even if the claimant is not in a position to prove the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending truck, still, he has a right to claim compensation on account of principle of "no fault liability". This Court is of the opinion that there is enough evidence on the record from which it can be inferred reasonably that the appellant suffered permanent disability. It has come in the statement of Shri Nain Dev while appearing as PW-1 that he received injury on his lower jaw and four teeth were broken down from the lower jaw. He further received injury on his forehead near right eye, lips and on his legs and arms. The medico-legal report Ex.P.l fully justifies that the appellant did suffer injuries. There is nore-buttal to the oral statement of the appellant either by the owner of the truck or by the driver. 1 have already stated above that Insurance Company was proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal.
16. In these circumstances. I hold that the appellant suffered permanent disability when his four teeth broke down and, therefore, he is entitled to the compensation under the "no fault liability" amounting to Rs. 25,OOOA. Therefore, the findings of the TribunaTon issues No. 2 and 3 are hereby disturbed and set aside and it is declared that the appellant is entitled to Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation under the "no fault liability".
17. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed and directions are given to the Insurance Company-respondent No. 3, to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the appellant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the filing the claim petition till payment. The payment shall be made within three months.
18. Appeal partly allowed.