Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 534 (HP)

Arun Kumar v. Pardeep Kumar

2014-05-06

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
Judgment : Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This appeal is instituted against the award dated 30.10.2013 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Hamirpur in MAC Petition No. 22 of 2010, RBT No. 21 of 2013. 2. Pertinent facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondent No.1 has filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. five lakhs alongwith pending and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition on account of injuries sustained by him in a road accident which took place on 3.1.2010 at about 5.15 P.M. at Taran-Da-Choa on Rangas Putrial road involving bus No.HP-55B-7502 driven by respondent No.3. According to the claim petition, respondent No.1 was hit by bus No.HP-55B-7502 coming from opposite side driven by respondent No.3 rashly and negligently. He received multiple injuries. He was taken to Sri Krishna Hospital, Hamirpur. He was later on referred to Dr. R.P.M.C. Hospital. He remained admitted in the hospital with effect from 6.1.2010 to 1.2.2010. He was operated upon for fracture of right elbow. He spent a sum of Rs. one lakh towards his treatment. He has suffered 30% permanent disability. FIR was also registered in the case. 3. The claim petition was contested by the appellant as well as respondent No.3. Appellant and respondent No.3 have denied the accident due to outcome of rash and negligent driving. Respondent No.2 has also filed reply. According to the reply filed by respondent No.2, there was violation of statutory provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The vehicle was being plied without registration certificate, fitness certificate and valid permit. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal framed the issues on 15.10.2011. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,16,726/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The litigation expenses were also awarded to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. It is in these circumstances, the owner has filed appeal against the award dated 30.10.2013. 4. Mr. Ramakant Sharma has vehemently argued that the award is highly excessive. According to him, respondent No.3 was possessing valid driving licence. 5. I have heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma and have gone through the award carefully. 6. The accident has taken place on 3.1.2010. The claimant was taken to Sri Krishan Hospital, Hamirpur. He was later on referred to Dr. R.P.M.C. Hospital. According to him, respondent No.3 was possessing valid driving licence. 5. I have heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma and have gone through the award carefully. 6. The accident has taken place on 3.1.2010. The claimant was taken to Sri Krishan Hospital, Hamirpur. He was later on referred to Dr. R.P.M.C. Hospital. He remained admitted in the hospital with effect from 6.1.2010 to 1.2.2010. He was also operated upon for fracture of right elbow. 7. According to PW-8 Pardeep Kumar, he was on his way from Nauhangi to Putrial alongwith Jagdish Chand on motorcycle. At about 5.15 P.M. when they reached Taran-Da-Choa, he was hit by bus No.HP-55B-7502 driven by respondent No.3 rashly and negligently. He sustained injuries on his right elbow. He was taken to Sri Krishna Hospital, Hamirpur and thereafter referred to Dr. R.P.M.C. Hospital. He has to incur Rs. one lakh towards medical expenses. He has suffered 30% disability. The accident was witnessed by PW-3 Jagdish Chand. According to him, accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3. FIR was lodged by PW-5 Smt. Kiran Bala on 15.1.2010 at Police Station, Nadaun vide Ex.PW-2/A. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3. The discharge card and summary treatment of the claimant is mark ‘A’. The claimant has placed on record medical bills and receipts Ex.PX-1 to Ex.PX-50 amounting to Rs.43,726/-. As per disability certificate Ex.PW-7/B issued by PW-7 Dr. Ramesh Chauhan, claimant has suffered 30% permanent disability. The disability of the claimant was to be seen being mason. He remained hospitalized with effect from 6.1.2010 to 1.2.2010. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-for loss of earnings during the period of treatment and recovery. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation expenses and the claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-for attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- have been awarded for nourishing food and special diet etc. The claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-as damages for pain, suffering and trauma. He has proved medical expenses by placing on record medical bills etc. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal has wrongly ignored Ex.PW-7/B. However, the claimant has not filed separate appeal. The claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-as damages for pain, suffering and trauma. He has proved medical expenses by placing on record medical bills etc. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal has wrongly ignored Ex.PW-7/B. However, the claimant has not filed separate appeal. In case separate appeal had been filed by the claimant, he would have been awarded compensation for future loss of income on the basis of Ex.PW-7/B. The sums awarded, as afore-stated by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, are strictly in accordance with law. 8. The bus was insured vide Ex.RZ with respondent No.2. RW-2 Jai Ram, Junior Assistant, R.T.O. Ropar has testified that the driving licence obtained by respondent No.3 was not issued by Licencing Authority, Ropar. Thus, there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy Ex.RZ and the Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence led by the parties and there is no need to interfere with the award. 9. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.