Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 556 (UTT)

Mohan Singh v. Vijai Singh

2007-11-15

J.C.S.RAWAT, RAJEEV GUPTA

body2007
Judgment J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dated 16-04-2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge, (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal'), Dehradun in MAC.P. No. 90/2000, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 2,22,9001- as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum to the claimant appellant against the New India Assurance Company. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount of compensation within forty-five days from the date of award. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant i.e. Mohan Singh had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal alleging therein that on 09-12-1999 he was going to Dehradun from Sahashpur side in a vehicle (Tractor) No. UMS 941. The tractor was being driven by the claimant himself. At about 10:30 P.M. a truck No. UP-7J-0268 coming from the opposite direction rashly and negligently dashed the Tractor due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his person. The claimant was taken to hospital for medical treatment. The said truck was being driven by its driver-Vijay Singh in a rash and negligent manner. The claimant has further alleged in the claim petition that he was 29 years of age; he was doing his own occupation of agriculture and of driving the tractor; and he used to earn Rs. 5000/- per month on the date of accident. The claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him has suffered a permanent disability up to an extent of 55% (fifty five percent). Hence, the claim petition had been preferred by the claimant. An amount of Rs. 17,30,000/- had been claimed as compensation in lieu of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident. 3. The opposite parties filed their written statements and contested the case. The driver and owner of the truck i.e. Vijay Singh and Sardar Singh Chauhan respectively have denied the allegations made in the claim petition. Sardar Singh Chauhan has further alleged that the truck was insured with the new India Assurance Co. Ltd. and as such, the liability to pay the compensation if any, is of the New India Assurance Company. The New IndiaAssurance Company had also filed its written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case. Ltd. and as such, the liability to pay the compensation if any, is of the New India Assurance Company. The New IndiaAssurance Company had also filed its written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case. On the basis of the evidence led by the claimant that the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending truck was rash and negligent at the time of accident. It was further held that the driver of the tractor was also rash and negligent and on account of the rash and negligence on the part of the tractor driver, the accident took place. The rash and negligence on the part of the truck driver was held upto the extent of 75% and the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, who was driving the tractor at the time of accident was assessed upto the extent of 25%. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 84,000/- towards the medical treatment of the claimant. In addition to this, Rs. 10,000/- each were awarded by the Tribunal under three heads i.e. pains & agony, transport charges and special diet. A sum of Rs. 5000/- was awarded for the loss of earning. The Tribunal has held that the claimant was 30 years of age at the time of accident. The income of the claimant was assessed at Rs. 2200/- per month or say Rs. 26,400/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the claimant, the dependency of the claimant was assessed at Rs. 1500/- per month. The Tribunal had applied the multiplier of "18" and the amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 3,24,000/ -. Keeping in view the permanent disability of claimant as 55%, the amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 1,78,2001- (Rs. 3,24,000 x 55 divided by 100). Thus, in this way, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,97,200/- (Rs. 1,78,000 + 1,19,000) alongwith the interest thereon @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment. It was further held that the insurer of the truck was liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant upto the extent of 75%. 2,97,200/- (Rs. 1,78,000 + 1,19,000) alongwith the interest thereon @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment. It was further held that the insurer of the truck was liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant upto the extent of 75%. It was further held that the drivers of both the vehicles contributed to the accident and therefore the claimant was entitled to get 75% amount from the insurer of the offending truck while rest of the amount was to be paid by the owner of the tractor. 5. Feeling aggrieved by this, the appellant-claimant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the driver (claimant) of the tractor was not rash and negligent at the time of accident. It was further contended that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the driver of the tractor was responsible for the accident upto the extent of 25%. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has supported the judgment of the Tribunal. 7. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that injured Mohan Singh has suffered a permanent disability upto an extent of 55% on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 09-12-1999; the insurer of the truck was liable to pay compensation to the claimant upto the extent of 75% ; and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck upto extent of 75% are not under-challenge before us in this appeal. Even otherwise, there is overwhelming evidence on record in support of the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. We, therefore, affirm the findings recorded by the Tribunal in that behalf. 8. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that a sum of Rs. 84,000/- has been awarded to the claimant towards the medical treatment; the income of the injured-claimant was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 2200/- per month or say Rs. 26,400/- per annum; the claimant was 30 years of age on the date of accident; after deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, the dependency of the claimant was assessed at Rs. 1500/- per month; the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of '18'; the amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 2200/- per month or say Rs. 26,400/- per annum; the claimant was 30 years of age on the date of accident; after deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, the dependency of the claimant was assessed at Rs. 1500/- per month; the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of '18'; the amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 3,24,000/-; and keeping in view the permanent disability of claimant as 55%, the amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 1,78,200/- (Rs.3,24,000 x 55 divided by 1 00) have not been challenged before us in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant claimant has not challenged the computation of the amount calculated by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant has only challenged before this Court that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the driver of the tractor was responsible for accident upto the extent of 25%. 9. The claimant had adduced himself as P.W.1 who was driving the tractor at the time of incident. The claimant has stated in his deposition that it was a head on collusion between the truck and the tractor. It is admitted case of the claimant that the offending truck coming from the opposite direction rashly and negligently dashed the tractor due to which the tractor turned turtle and he sustained injuries on his person. It is also admitted to the claimant that the road at the place of the accident was so wide that two vehicles could ply over it easily. He had further stated that he saw the truck coming from the opposite direction at a distance of 20 feet. It is obvious that the driver of the tractor would also have seen the truck coming from the opposite direction. As such, the driver of the tractor could have gone to his extreme left in order to avoid the accident. The driver of the tractor had sufficient opportunity to see the truck coming from the opposite direction and in case, if he would have taken due care and caution then this accident could not have taken place. He also failed to do so. Perusal of the evidence clearly reveals that the Tribunal was justified in holding that it was a head on collusion and the driver of the tractor had sufficient opportunity to avoid the accident and he had not taken due care to avoid the accident. He also failed to do so. Perusal of the evidence clearly reveals that the Tribunal was justified in holding that it was a head on collusion and the driver of the tractor had sufficient opportunity to avoid the accident and he had not taken due care to avoid the accident. As such, he was also responsible for the accident upto the extent of 25%. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. As we have already held that the rash and negligence on the part of the truck driver was only to the extent of 75% while rest of the rash and negligence was on the part of the claimant. Since the driver of the tractor was 25% responsible for the accident, hence the claimant would be entitled to get 75% of the said amount from the insurer of the 'truck while the rest of the amount is to be paid by the owner of the tractor. 11. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation to the claimant. Therefore, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.