Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1059 (HP)

Reeta Chandel v. General Manager

2015-08-07

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, CJ. The unfortunate claimant-injured has been driven to this Court by the vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Nand Lal, while driving bus, bearing registration No. HP-24-4583, rashly and negligently, on 08.07.2005, at about 2.45 P.M. at place Sungal on National Highway 21, on its way from Bilaspur to Ghagus, in which she sustained injuries, was taken to Zonal Hospital and, thereafter, was referred to IGMC, Shimla, where she remained admitted from 22.07.2005 to 02.09.2005, as a traffic accident case. 2. After the claimant-injured was discharged from the hospital, she invoked the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") by the medium of M.A.C. No. 14 of 2006, titled as Reeta Chandel versus The General Manager and others, for grant of compensation, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition 3. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents in the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 03.03.2007: "1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident which was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 of Bus No. HP-24- 4583 as well as negligence of respondent No. 4 conductor of the said bus, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 1272 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR-2 4. Relief." 5. Parties have led evidence. The Tribunal, in terms of the judgment and award, dated 30.08.2008, held that no rashness and negligence of the driver and conductor of the offending vehicle is made out and dismissed the claim petition (for short "the impugned award"). Issue No. 1: 6. The factum of accident is not in dispute. While going through the copy of he FIR, Ext. PW-2/A, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the accident was outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the bus, bearing registration No. HP-24-4583, rashly and negligently, on 08.07.2005, at about 2.45 P.M. at place Sungal on National Highway 21, by its driver, in which she sustained injuries. 7. While going through the copy of he FIR, Ext. PW-2/A, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the accident was outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the bus, bearing registration No. HP-24-4583, rashly and negligently, on 08.07.2005, at about 2.45 P.M. at place Sungal on National Highway 21, by its driver, in which she sustained injuries. 7. The medical certificate, discharge certificate and other documents on the file do disclose that the claimant-injured has sustained injuries, was admitted in the hospital and was bed ridden for a pretty long time, particularly, w.e.f. 22.07.2005 to 02.09.2005. 8. The Tribunal has succumbed to the hypertechnicalities and the mystic maybe's, which is not the aim and object of granting compensation. I wonder, why the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that it is not known as to whether the claimant-injured has entered in the bus from the front door or from the rear door. On this count, issue No. 1 was decided against the claimant-injured and the claim petition was dismissed, is wrong appreciation of the evidence and the documents. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are set aside and it is held that the driver had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the relevant point of time and caused the accident, in which the claimant-injured sustained injuries. 9. Before I determine issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issue No. 3. Issue No. 3: 10. The claimant-injured has suffered injuries in the accident, which was caused by the driver, while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, thus, was within her rights to file claim petition. Accordingly, issue No. 3 is decided in favour of the claimant-injured and against the respondent. Issue No. 2: 11. The claimant-injured has produced on the file the documents, which do disclose that she has spent a considerable amount on her treatment, remained admitted in the hospital w.e.f. 22.07.2005 to 02.09.2005, was attended upon by the attendant. 12. It is beaten law of land that while assessing compensation in injury cases, guess work is to be made and compensation is to be awarded under two heads : pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages, which has not been done in the present case. 13. 12. It is beaten law of land that while assessing compensation in injury cases, guess work is to be made and compensation is to be awarded under two heads : pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages, which has not been done in the present case. 13. My this view is fortified by the judgments made by the Apex Court in the cases titled as R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6085, Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4787, and Kavita versus Deepak and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4771. 1273 14. The claimant-injured has placed on record the medical bills to the tune of Rs.11,529.48/- and receipts of taxi charges amounting to Rs.5,500/-. 15. By guess work, I deem it proper to award Rs. 20,000/- under the head 'medical expenditure', Rs. 5,000/- under the head 'transportation charges', Rs.10,000/- under the head 'attendant charges', Rs.10,000/- under the head 'special diet', Rs.30,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings' and Rs. 25,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities of life'. 16. Having said so, the claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.30,000/- + Rs.25,000/- = Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization and respondent No. 1 is directed to satisfy the award. 17. The awarded amount be deposited before the Registry within eight weeks. On deposition of the amount, the same be released in favour of the claimant-injured after proper identification. 18. The appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 19. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.