Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 688 (JK)

Union of India & Anr. v. Gulzar Ahmed & anr.

2012-10-30

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
1. The subject matter in both these appeals is award dated 17.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, in File No.520/Claim, titled as Gulzar Ahmed vs Union of India & others, whereby an award of Rs.1,22,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% came to be awarded in favour of claimant Gulzar Ahmed and against the Union of India from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization (for short, impugned award), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeals. 2. In order to return a finding, it is necessary to give brief resume of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the present appeals. 3. It is averred in the claim petition that claimant Gulzar Ahmed is a Class IV employee in the office of CAPD. On 09.11.2006, the offending vehicle, bearing No.04D15979L (Army Truck), which was being driven by respondent no.2, namely, Vishnav Dass, rashly and negligently, hit one Motorcycle, bearing registration No.JK02AA/2495, which was being driven by one Balwinder Singh and claimant Gulzar Ahmed was a pillion rider, at Sidhra Bye Pass, Jammu, as a result of which claimant Gulzar Ahmed as well as said Balwinder Singh sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to Acharaya Shri Chander College of Medical Sciences and Hospital, Sidhra, Jammu. Claimant Gulzar Ahmed remained admitted there for 15 days, whereas as Balwinder Singh remained in coma for more than one week. Claimant Gulzar Ahmed sustained 12% permanent disability and he had to spend a lot of money for his treatment. Claimant Gulzar Ahmed filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation. 4. Union of India contested the claim petition and following issues came to be framed: “1. Whether an accident occurred on 09.11.2006 near Sidhra Bye Pass, Jammu, by the rash and negligent driving of offending army vehicle No.04D15979L being driven rashly and negligently in the hands of erring driver in which petitioner S. Balwinder Singh and Gulzar Ahmed sustained grievous injuries? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Relief.” 5. Claimant was directed to lead evidence. The witnesses examined were PWs Sarbjit Singh, Satrangi, Dr. I. K. Wangoo, Dr. Sham Jurangal and Dr. Maqbool Ahmed Zargar, besides claimant also appeared in the witness box, in support of his case. 6. OPP 3. Relief.” 5. Claimant was directed to lead evidence. The witnesses examined were PWs Sarbjit Singh, Satrangi, Dr. I. K. Wangoo, Dr. Sham Jurangal and Dr. Maqbool Ahmed Zargar, besides claimant also appeared in the witness box, in support of his case. 6. Union of India examined one Vishwa Nath in rebuttal. 7. While addressing the arguments, Mr.Pangotra, learned counsel for Union of India resisted the award only to the extent that the amount of compensation is excessive. 8. All the witnesses have deposed that Driver Vishnav Dass was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of accident. In the accident, claimant Gulzar Ahmed suffered grievous injuries and he had to remain in the hospital for 15 days. He spent a lot of money on his treatment and as a result of the injuries the claimant Gulzar Ahmed sustained 12% permanent disability. 9. There is no evidence in rebuttal. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly decided issue no.1 in favour of claimant and against the Union of India. 10. I have gone through the evidence recorded by the Tribunal and the documents on the file. I am of the considered view that there is sufficient evidence on the file to hold that the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Vishnav Dass, caused the accident while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result of which claimant Gulzar Ahmed sustained 12% permanent disability. 11. Issue no.2 Admittedly, claimant Gulzar Ahmed is a Class IV employee and the Tribunal has rightly held that claimant has not suffered any loss of income in his pay. However, in the long run, the disability factor may affect the earning capacity of claimant Gulzar Ahmed. 12. The Tribunal after examining the entire record and exercising guess work awarded Rs.50,000/- under the head pain and sufferings and an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head loss of amenities of life. The Tribunal after taking into account the medical bills produced by the claimant, amounting to Rs.12032/-, awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs.22000/- in favour of claimant under the head medical expenses/hospitalization. Thus, in total, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,22,000/- along with 7.5% interest in favour of claimant Gulzar Ahmed from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 13. Thus, in total, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,22,000/- along with 7.5% interest in favour of claimant Gulzar Ahmed from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 13. While going through the impugned award one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the compensation awarded is just and appropriate, cannot be said to be excessive in any way, thus needs no interference. 14. Having glance of the above discussion, the impugned award merits to be upheld and appeals merit to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and both the appeals are dismissed.