Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1539 (HP)

Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests v. Banita Kumari

2014-10-31

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. The appellants-State has questioned the award, dated 25th July, 2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.52 of 2003, titled Banita Kumari vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,69,000/, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimant (respondent No.1 herein) and against the respondents i.e. appellants herein, (for short, the impugned award). Brief facts: 2. Claimant became the victim of a vehicular accident, which was caused on 2nd March, 2003, by the driver, namely, Sohan Lal, while driving Ambassador Car No.HP-03-2335, rashly and negligently and hit the scooter bearing No.HP-33-4902, at Salah in Sundernagar, on which the claimant was traveling as pillion rider, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries. The said scooter was being driven by the husband of the claimant. The claimant sought compensation to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. Appellants and the driver of the offending Car resisted the Claim Petition. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: ?1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of Car No.HP-03-2335 on 2.3.2004 at place Salah (Sundernagar) being driven by respondent No.2 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Relief.? 5. The claimant, in order to prove her claim, examined as many as five witnesses, including herself and also produced on record documents i.e. Ext.PW-3/A (discharge slip), Ext.PW-3/B (copy of MLC) and Exts.PW-5/A-1 to PW-5/A-36 (copies of medical bills). 6. The appellants and the driver of the offending vehicle examined three witnesses. 7. After scanning the entire evidence, the Tribunal held that the claimant had proved that the driver had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and accordingly decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimant. 8. The findings recorded by the Tribunal under issue No.1 are not under challenge before this Court. The only dispute is that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 8. The findings recorded by the Tribunal under issue No.1 are not under challenge before this Court. The only dispute is that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. However, I have gone through the record of the case. The claimant has established that the driver had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the scooter on which the claimant was traveling as pillion rider, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries. Therefore, the findings recorded under Issue No.1 are upheld. Issue No.2: 9. Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner and in order to discharge the same, the claimant examined PW-1 Dr.Sanjeev Kapoor, who has proved the disability certificate Ext.PA and stated that the claimant had suffered 20% permanent disability, which has also affected the earning capacity of the claimant. The Claimant also examined Chander Gopal, Chief Pharmacist, Civil Hospital, Sundernagar, as PW-3, who has proved that the claimant was admitted in the Hospital on 2nd March, 2003 and was discharged on 7th March, 2003. He has also proved the discharge slip as Ext.PW-3/A and the MLC as Ext.PW-3/B. 10. The Tribunal recorded reasons in paragraphs 22 to 26 and 29 of the impugned award, while holding the claimant entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.1,69,000/-. 11. After going through the impugned award and the record of the case, I am of the opinion that the amount awarded in favour of the claimant is inadequate. However, since the claimant has not questioned the impugned award, the same is reluctantly upheld. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant strictly in terms of the impugned award.