Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 349 (UTT)

KM. VIDYA VINODRAY MAKHECHA v. MANUBHAI R. PATEL

2007-06-22

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2007
P. C. PANT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against the judgment and award dated 31st august, 1985, passed by Motor Accident claims Tribunal/additional District Judge, dehradun, in M. A. C. Case No. 70 of 1982, whereby the claim petition of the claimant was dismissed. ( 2 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that claimant km. Vidya Vinodray Makhecha, was travelling with her family members in a matador Minibus, bearing registration no. GRG 5550 from Chandigarh to dehradun. The said vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 3-Babu Lal, driver. It is alleged that the driver was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. On 3rd November, 1981, at about 7:45 a. m. , near Subhash Nagar bus Stop, the aforesaid vehicle dashed with a tree in which the claimant Km. Vidya vinodray Makhecha, got injured. ( 4 ) THE claim petition was contested by the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, on the ground that the mishap in question was minor one, which resulted due to bad/slippery condition of road. It is specifically pleaded by respondent nos. l and 3 that the vehicle was being driven slowly and cautiously. It is further alleged that the injuries suffered by the claimant were of minor nature, requiring mere first aid. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 2, New India Assurance company, also contested the claim petition and filed its separate written statement. In the written statement, filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, it is alleged that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms of insurance policy, as the vehicle was not permitted to take the passengers on hire or reward. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed following issues:- 1. Whether the accident, involving matador Minibus No. GRG 5550, owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 3 on 3rd november, 1981, at about 7:45 a. m. in Subhash Nagar, occurred was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver? 2. Whether the vehicle in question was carrying passengers or was it a private vehicle, as claimed? If so, its effect? 3. Whether the vehicle in question could notbe used for hire or reward? if so, its effect? 4. 2. Whether the vehicle in question was carrying passengers or was it a private vehicle, as claimed? If so, its effect? 3. Whether the vehicle in question could notbe used for hire or reward? if so, its effect? 4. Whether the vehicle in question was not being driven by respondent no. 3 at the time of accident? If so, its effect? 5. To what amount of compensation, if any, is the claimant entitled and against which of the opposite parties? ( 6 ) AFTER recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal found that the vehicle registration No. GRG 5550, involved in the alleged accident was a private vehicle. It further held that the vehicle was not permitted to lake the passengers on hire or reward. It is also held by the Tribunal that the claimant was travelling in the vehicle in violation of the terms of the policy. The tribunal further took the view that the accident was of a trivial in nature and on a slippery road, the vehicle skidded due to rain. Holding that the driver was not rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, the tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence this appeal was filed before Allahabad High court on 17th December, 1985. The appeal was admitted by the said Court (Allahabad high Court) on 16th May, 1986. This appeal is received by transfer to this Court under section 35 of U. P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. ( 7 ) PERUSAL of the lower Court record, shows that claimant KM. Vidya Vinodray makhecha, who was traveling on 3rd november, 1981, at about 7:45 a. m. in the vehicle bearing registration No. GRG 5550, sustained following injuries, as are mentioned by the claimant/appellant herself in para 12 of the claim petition. The same are being reproduced below: "1. Traumatic swelling in a circle of 6 cm into 2. 50 cm. on forehead with abrasions. 2. Mental jerks, shock and pains. " ( 8 ) THOUGH the claim of Rs. 5,000/- has been made against the respondents but it is not clear how the same is calculated. A vague assertion has been made in the claim petition, claiming Rs. 4,000/- on account of mental and physical pain apart from said amount of compensation, Rs. 1,000/- has been claimed for medical expenses. " ( 8 ) THOUGH the claim of Rs. 5,000/- has been made against the respondents but it is not clear how the same is calculated. A vague assertion has been made in the claim petition, claiming Rs. 4,000/- on account of mental and physical pain apart from said amount of compensation, Rs. 1,000/- has been claimed for medical expenses. The statement of P. W. 1 v. V. Makhecha, recorded by the trial Court does not disclose any details, regarding medical expenses etc. ( 9 ) AS far the question of driver being rash and negligent is concerned, it is specifically stated by D. W. I Narayana Das that at the time of accident it was raining and there was a turn at the site of the accident. Due to bad/ slippery condition of the road, the vehicle dashed at the tree. This witness has further stated that speed of vehicle was only 25-30 km. per hour. P. W. 1 V. V. Makhecha in his examination-in-chief, has admitted that it was raining at the time of the accident. Having gone through the evidence on record, this Court finds no error of law, committed by the Tribunal in appreciating the evidence. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons, as discussed above, this Court is of the view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .