Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 344 (PNJ)

Bharat Bhushan v. Mamu Ram

2014-02-12

KULDIP SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Kuldip Singh, J.: - By this common order, I will dispose of the appeal filed by the owner-appellant and cross-objection filed by the claimant. 2. On 16.11.1995 at about 10.30 a.m. the claimant was a pillion rider on a scooter and was going to bus stand of village Murtzapur. The scooter was driven by its driver at normal speed. Near Gurudwara of village Murtzapur, a tractor No.HNQ-3429 alongwith harrow, being driven by respondent Bharat Bhushan rashly and negligently, came from the opposite direction and hit his scooter as a result of which claimant received grievous injuries on his right leg and other parts of the body. 3. The respondent on appearance, denied the accident. It was stated that the offending tractor is not insured. Respondent denied all the facts constituting the accident. He claimed that the story had been concocted by the claimant. From the pleadings, the following issues were framed: “1) Whether the accident resulting in injuries to Mamu Ram took place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing registration No.HNQ 3429 by respondent driver Bharat Bhushan ? OPP. 2) if issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation is the claimant entitled and from whom? OPP. 3)Relief. 4. The Tribunal took the view that the claimant received injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of the respondent and awarded Rs.57,850/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. Further condition was also imposed regarding depositing the amount in FDR. 5. The owner of the offending tractor has challenged the award claiming that he has been wrongly held liable for the accident, whereas the claimant is not satisfied with the award and has filed cross objections claiming that inadequate compensation has been granted. Therefore, it should be enhanced. 6. First of all, I will take up the appeal of the owner. 7. Learned counsel for the owner-appellant has argued that in this case no FIR was registered. He has further referred to the statement of claimant Mamu Ram as AW2 wherein he failed to tell the number of the scooter. He also even failed to tell the name of the driver of the scooter. 7. Learned counsel for the owner-appellant has argued that in this case no FIR was registered. He has further referred to the statement of claimant Mamu Ram as AW2 wherein he failed to tell the number of the scooter. He also even failed to tell the name of the driver of the scooter. It has been argued that respondent has examined Ami Lal RW2 and has also examined himself to prove his stand that infact claimant was already lying injured and appellant-respondent Bharat Bhushan came there and out of sympathy, he removed the injured/claimant to the hospital and thereafter, out of greed, the claimant filed the false claim petition. I am of the view that the plea of the owner-appellant is not acceptable. Though in this case, no FIR was registered but it is not the law that registration of FIR is pre-condition to claim the compensation. The perusal of the record shows that claimant placed on file the intimation sent by the doctor to the police regarding admission of the claimant in hospital. Appellant admitted that he had removed the injured/claimant to the hospital. His side of the story as put forward by him and supported by his witness Ami Lal, cannot be accepted for several reasons. First of all, it was not pleaded in the written statement that claimant was lying injured and that the appellant came from village and being co-villager and out of sympathy, he brought his tractor and removed the injured to Hospital. Secondly, both the parties are co-villagers and it is unlikely that if the appellant-owner had removed the injured/claimant to hospital, the claimant will falsely name him. Rather in normal circumstances, he would be thankful to him for helping him. Therefore, I am of the view that statement of claimant was rightly relied upon by the Tribunal to hold that appellant drove the tractor rashly and negligently and caused the accident. Claimant had thumb marked the claim petition showing that he is illiterate. It is not that he could not tell the name of the scooter driver and the number of the scooter but he also could not tell the number of the tractor of the appellant-owner claiming that he is illiterate. Claimant had thumb marked the claim petition showing that he is illiterate. It is not that he could not tell the name of the scooter driver and the number of the scooter but he also could not tell the number of the tractor of the appellant-owner claiming that he is illiterate. His story is that he was going to the village and he took lift on the scooter and near the gurudwara of village Murtzapur to which the parties belong, the accident took place. Therefore, there is no motive on the part of the claimant to falsely name the respondent-owner. Therefore, findings of the Tribunal to the effect that respondent-appellant drove the tractor rashly and negligently and caused accident, are upheld. 8. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. 9. Now coming to the Cross-objections of the appellant. 10. It is not disputed that as per the disability certificate Ex.R1, there was shortening of right lower limb by 2 inches and movement of right ankle joint is restricted. The doctor declared 45% permanent disability. When the doctor was examined in the Court, he stated that disability of the claimant relating to whole body is 40.5%. Claimant remained admitted in various hospitals for about 2 months. Therefore, for 40.5% disability, compensation at the rate of Rs.2000/- for one percent is allowed which comes to Rs.81,000/-. For loss of working of two months in the year 1995, he is entitled to compensation @ Rs.3,000/-. For attendant and special diet another sum of Rs.3000/- is allowed. The total amount of compensation comes to Rs.87,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.57,850/- to Rs.87,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall be paid with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation. The amount of compensation shall be paid by depositing in the bank account of claimant to be furnished before Tribunal. Cross-objections are accordingly allowed to the above extent. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————