Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1205 (HP)

Sanjay Kumar v. Piar Chand

2014-09-05

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are directed against the award, dated 27th December, 2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby claim petition, titled as Piar Chand v. Sanjay Kumar and Anr., came to be determined by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,66,763/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, in favour of the claimant and against the respondents, (for short, the impugned award). 2. FAO No.32 of 2007 has been filed by the driver and the owner, while FAO No.387 of 2007 has been filed by the claimant Piar Chand for enhancement of compensation. Since both the appeals arise out of the single award, therefore, both are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimant Piar Chand (appellant in FAO No.387 of 2007) filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short, the Act), for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,40,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition, on the ground that on 28th November, 2003, at about 7.30 p.m., the claimant was coming back to his home on his scooter, was hit by the scooter bearing registration No. HP-21-3725, being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, namely, Sanjay Kumar, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries and became unconscious, was taken to a private hospital at Barsar, from where was referred to PGI, Chandigarh and was operated upon on 29.11.2003. FIR No.120/2003, dated 28.11.2003, under Sections 279 and 337 IPC was also registered at Police Station, Barsar. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2, i.e. appellants in FAO No.32 of 2007, resisted the claim petition by filing separate replies. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: "1. Whether the scooter of the petitioner on 28.11.2003 at Bani was hit by respondent No.1 while driving scooter No. HP-21-3725 rashly and negligently and consequently petitioner fell and received injuries as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the scooter of the petitioner on 28.11.2003 at Bani was hit by respondent No.1 while driving scooter No. HP-21-3725 rashly and negligently and consequently petitioner fell and received injuries as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of Insurance Company of the Scooter No.CH-01-9652? OPR 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR-2. 5. Relief." 6. Parties have led their evidence. Claimant Piar Chand appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 Pankaj Kumar (son of the claimant), PW-3 Rajesh Kumar and PW-4 Puneet Toli. On the other hand, respondent No.1 Sanjay Kumar stepped into the witness box as RW-1 and Satish Kumar was also examined by the respondents as RW-2. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the pleadings and the evidence, held that the claimant has proved issue No.1 and accordingly, granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,66,763/-, under various heads detailed in paragraph 14 of the impugned award. The Tribunal has categorically recorded that the criminal case registered against respondent No.1 has resulted into his conviction, but the Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that, on appeal, he stood acquitted of the charges. However, there is evidence, oral as well as documentary, led by the claimant that the offending scooter was being driven by respondent No.1, namely, Sanjay Kumar, rashly and negligently. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the offending scooter was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 Sanjay Kumar, on the fateful day, are liable to be upheld. 8. Coming to issues No.3 and 4, onus to prove these issues was on the respondents i.e. on the driver and the owner, which they could not discharge. Accordingly, the findings recorded under these issues are upheld. Issue No.2: 9. It was for the claimant to prove to what amount of compensation he is entitled to. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 16,763/- under the head 'medical expenses'. A perusal of the record shows that the claimant had placed on record documents i.e. medical bills Exts.P-1 to P-10 and Ext.P-16, in terms of which he had spent Rs. 16,763/- as medical expenses. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 16,763/- under this head. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 16,763/- under the head 'medical expenses'. A perusal of the record shows that the claimant had placed on record documents i.e. medical bills Exts.P-1 to P-10 and Ext.P-16, in terms of which he had spent Rs. 16,763/- as medical expenses. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 16,763/- under this head. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 50,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering', which also appears to be reasonable while exercising guess work. Under the head 'loss of amenities of life, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1.00 lac. 10. While keeping in view the mandate of the Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , the amount awarded under the head 'loss of amenities of life' appears to be on the higher side. Therefore, I deem it proper to reduce the amount of Rs. 1.00 lac and award Rs. 50,000/-, being just and appropriate under this head. 11. Having said so, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced and the claimant is held entitled to Rs. 1,16,763/-, with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The impugned award is modified accordingly. The Registry is directed to release the amount of compensation in favour of the claimant and the excess amount, if any, deposited by the appellants Sanjay Kumar and Brij Lal be refunded to them through payees account cheque. 12. In view of the above discussion, FAO No.32 of 2007 is allowed, as indicated above, and FAO No. 387 of 2007 is dismissed. Appeal allowed.