Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 595 (MP)

Satyanarayan v. Nathulal

2012-06-22

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Appeal No.2189/05 primarily because learned counsel appearing for the parties requested that both the appeals be heard together and secondly because they arise out of the same motor accident. 2. These appeals have been filed by the appellant Satyanarayan owner of the vehicle under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 25.4.2005 passed by Additional M.A.C.T., Javad; whereby the claims Tribunal allowed the claim petition of respondents Nathulal and Laxminarayan filed under section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the motor accident, awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- to appellant-respondent Nathulal and Rs.20,000/- to appellant-respondent Laxminarayan respectively. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to state the relevant facts which are as follows on 14.2.2004 respondents Nathulal and Laxminarayan were going in a ‘Kisan Gaddi’ owned by the appellant Satyanarayan Jain and driven by respondent No.2 Pyarchand. Both Nathulal and Laxminarayan were labourers and residents of village Ranakkhedi. They had filled the vehicle with groundnuts (Moongfali) belonging to the trader Ajay Mandovara. However, near Ratan Garh Ghat the vehicle turned turtle due to negligence and rash driving of the driver-respondent No.2 Pyarchand and both Nathulal as well as Laxminarayan sustained injuries. 3. This incident gave rise to claim petitions filed by Nathulal and Laxminarayan respectively under section 166 of the Act being Claim Case Nos.76/04 and 75/04 before the Additional M.A.C.T., Javad. Out of which, the present Miscellaneous Appeal No.2188/05 and Miscellaneous Appeal No.2189/05 arose since Satyanarayan the alleged owner of the Kisan Gaddi has disputed his liability to pay the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Counsel for the appellant Satyanarayan has vehemently urged the fact that the appellant Satyanarayan has denied being the owner of the vehicle, stating that the vehicle was not insured and there was no insurance company. Moveover, he was also not the owner of the Kisan Gaddi which has caused the accident. The FIR was lodged after the delay of 12 days on 26.2.2004. Moreover, the defence taken by the appellant before the trial Court as well as before this Court in appeal is that, there was no documentary evidence on record, to establish the fact that the appellant was owner of the said vehicle. The FIR was lodged after the delay of 12 days on 26.2.2004. Moreover, the defence taken by the appellant before the trial Court as well as before this Court in appeal is that, there was no documentary evidence on record, to establish the fact that the appellant was owner of the said vehicle. Moreover, the impugned vehicle has not been seized and neither was it insured nor registered with the R.T.O. and the entire prosecution case by the claimant was concocted. The award has been passed merely on the oral evidence on the claimant strangely supported by sole eye-witness PW3 Bhanwarlal. However, counsel made it clear that the name of the eye-witness is neither mentioned in the FIR nor is any statement by him recorded under section 161 of the CrPC by the police; thereby rendering his testimony absolutely suspicious. Moreover, counsel insisted that the testimony of the Pyarchand the driver has also been misconstrued. Counsel insisted that the Tribunal had placed heavy reliance in Ex.P-9 which was an application given by Pyarchand to the Police Station Incharge at Ratangarh, expressing that an accident had taken place by the Kissan Gaddi belonging to Satyanarayan. Counsel submitted that the document was not a certified copy nor proved in accordance with the provisions of the law and had been wrongly relied on by the Tribunal at the time of awarding the compensation. Moreover, counsel submitted that since Ajay Mandovara has not been examined at length he had categorically denied having sold any groundnuts to Satyanarayan. Then under these circumstances, no case is made out against Satyanarayan and Pyarchand. The claimants had not fully proved the case and counsel proved that the liability was not incurred by Satyanarayan since he was not the owner of the alleged vehicle nor was the alleged vehicle registered in his name and more clinchingly the vehicle was never recovered from him. Counsel prayed that the impugned award be set aside also on the ground that the claimants did not sustain any grievous injuries as alleged. The claimants Nathulal PW1 and Laxminarayan PW2 have wrongly relied on since Nathulal has himself stated that they had left Dr. Sanghi Hospital and returned to Ratangarh on the same day of the accident and had also gone to Bilwada after staying 5 days at Ratangarh and they had failed to report the matter to the police. The claimants Nathulal PW1 and Laxminarayan PW2 have wrongly relied on since Nathulal has himself stated that they had left Dr. Sanghi Hospital and returned to Ratangarh on the same day of the accident and had also gone to Bilwada after staying 5 days at Ratangarh and they had failed to report the matter to the police. More importantly counsel submitted that father of Nathulal was a previous police officer and on his instructions a false case has been registered. Similarly there is only a whisper of animosity between the parties since Satyanarayan was the trader and the claimants were loaders (hamals). However, there is no evidence in this regard on record. Counsel submitted that the disability certificate as required under the provisions of law was also not produced by both the claimants. Counsel finally submitted that the Tribunal had awarded high compensation considering the fact that there was no medical evidence on record. The medical bills that were produced to the tune of Rs.9,315/- by the applicants and Rs.15,000/- has been awarded to the medical expenses which was rather excessive. Counsel contended that the assessment of income was also on the higher side and without documentary proof. Counsel prayed that the impugned award was contrary to the provisions of law, and facts, and evidence, on record. He prayed that the impugned award be set aside. 5. Counsel for the respondents claimants on the other hand has fully supported the award passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. He submitted that the claimants were illiterate and ignorant person and strict degree of proof is not required as required in civil suit since the provisions of the CrPC and the Evidence Act are merely guidelines. Council contended that the proceedings were summary in nature before the Tribunal and it was also not essential for claimant to prove the evidence as required under the criminal cases. Counsel submitted that Bhanwarlal and Laxminarayan were both reliable witnesses and had categorically stated that they had used the Kisan Gaddi previously also. PW2 Laxminarayan has in his deposition in para 5 stated that the Kisan Gaddi belongs to Satyanarayan Jain and on previous occasions also he had gone in the said vehicle when the need arose. Counsel submitted that Bhanwarlal and Laxminarayan were both reliable witnesses and had categorically stated that they had used the Kisan Gaddi previously also. PW2 Laxminarayan has in his deposition in para 5 stated that the Kisan Gaddi belongs to Satyanarayan Jain and on previous occasions also he had gone in the said vehicle when the need arose. He also fully supported the contentions of the reasonings of the Tribunal when it is expressed that the alleged vehicle Kisan Gaddi would be covered by section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended in 1994. Counsel submitted that the “vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source. The Act does not permit the vehicles which are used inside the premises whereas in the present case the Kisan Gaddi has been utilised on the road. Moreover, counsel submitted that the Tribunal had rightly placed on Rajasthan SRTC v. Nandkishore [ AIR 2001 (Raj.) 334 ], to state that the strict compliance of the provisions of the Evidence Act are not necessary in a claimant’s case. Moreover, counsel contended that the Ex.P-3 MLC, Ex.P-4 report of Sanghi’s Orthopedic Hospital, Neemuch, X-ray Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-8 completely proved that Laxminarayan received the fracture on right hand and lower ulna bone and Nathulal suffered a fracture on the left hand and counsel submitted that there was no infirmity in the impugned award and prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 6. On considering the above submissions, I find that two important questions that arise for decision in the appeal are whether the vehicle “Kisan Gaddi”, which belonged to the appellant Satyanarayan and was responsible for causing the accident; resulting, in injuries to the respondents and was a “vehicle” in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and whether award passed was in accordance with the provisions of law since there are no disability certificates on record nor has any doctor been examined. 7. Considering the first question, I find that the trial Court has not erred in holding that the “Kisan Gaddi” is a vehicle in terms of section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It would be covered under ‘mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads’. However, grave suspension has been raised regarding the ownership since the said vehicle which does not have any registration or insurance. It would be covered under ‘mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads’. However, grave suspension has been raised regarding the ownership since the said vehicle which does not have any registration or insurance. Moreover, the FIR is delayed by 12 days, so also there could be grave suspicion regarding the accident have been taken place by the alleged Kisan Gaddi. Moreover, eye-witness PW3 Bhanwarlal is alleged to be a put up witness but he has categorically stated that he was present on the occasion when the accident took place and the vehicle had turned turtle due to the negligence of the driver Pyar Chand respondent No.2. I also find that the claimants are ignorant labourers and have no knowledge about the law and the medical bills and other papers have not been properly retained by them. The Motor Vehicles Act makes provision for the compensationof victims of accidents; and in this light; strict proof of the accident, is not necessary. 8. However, there is substance in the contentions put forth by the counsel for the appellant/insurance company that neither the ownership of the alleged vehicle nor the fact of the accident having taken place have been fully established by the claimants in the stricter sense. There is no medical evidence on record to establish the disability also since the doctor of the MLC or any other doctor, from the Sanghi’s Hospital has not been examined to prove the claims of the claimants; and the other fact that raises strong doubt against the claimants is the fact that father of Nathulal was a police officer and the case may have been put up at his instance since Ajay Mandovara DW3 the trader also has not supported the case of the claimants. 9. True there is overwhelming evidence against the claimants to indicate their negligence and in these circumstances it becomes difficult to separate the bran from the chaff, but the prime consideration being grant of compensation to the victims of road accidents according to the primary objectives of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. True there is overwhelming evidence against the claimants to indicate their negligence and in these circumstances it becomes difficult to separate the bran from the chaff, but the prime consideration being grant of compensation to the victims of road accidents according to the primary objectives of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. I find that the important fact that cannot be marginalized or blinked away is that, the claimants are illiterate ignorant villagers and Ex.P-3 MLC, Ex.P-4 report of Sanghi’s Orthopedic Hospital, Neemuch, X-ray Ex.P-5, Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9 the note by Pyarchand the driver, clearly establish the fact that the claimants who sustained injuries in the accident were poor labourers whereas per contra, the allegations of the rivalry with the owner are vague; and since the appellant has also been unable to state as to why the claimants would unnecessarily implicate him, since there are no allegation of animosity between the parties nor have they been established. And suspicion, however, strong cannot take the place of proof. Besides both the claimants and PW3 Bherulal the eye-witness have been found to be reliable by the trial Court and there is no need to doubt their testimony. It is in this regard that no infirmity can be found with the award of the Tribunal. 10. Consequently, to do substantial justice between the parties, I find that this Court had already directed on 4.8.2005 the deposition of half of the amount awarded by the Tribunal and the same has been deposited by the appellant owner in the year 2005 itself before the trial Court. In these circumstances since the disability has not been proved by the claimants I find that the amount of compensation awarded is on the higher side and it is, therefore, reduced to half of that awarded by the Tribunal. The amount shall be paid forthwith to the claimants. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated. Original judgment is retained in Miscellaneous Appeal No.2188/05 and a copy whereof be placed in the record of connected Miscellaneous Appeal No.2189/05. .............