Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 539 (HP)

Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Madan Lal

2017-05-17

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is maintained by the appellants/respondents (before the learned Tribunal below) (hereinafter to be called as “the respondents”) against the impugned award, dated 28.09.2011, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu, H.P. in Claim Petition No. 37 of 2009, filed by the petitioner/who is respondent No. 1 before this Court (hereinafter to be called as “the petitioner”), wherein the petitioner was awarded compensation of Rs. 2,82,000/-alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realization. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 21.05.2008, the petitioner, being a representative of ITI, Kullu in 20th State Level Sport, had gone to attend the sports meet alongwith his fellow-mates. The petitioner and his fellow-mates on completion of said event, boarded a HRTC bus, bearing registration No. HP-48-4530. When the bus reached at Balu, District Chamba, where the work of metalling the road was going on, the driver of the bus while negotiating a curve, could not control the bus, due to which, the bus collided with concrete electric pole and the petitioner, who was sitting in the rear seat of the bus on driver’s side, sustained grievous injury on his right arm. After the said accident, the petitioner was shifted to District Hospital, Chamba, wherefrom he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted from 22.05.2008 to 24.05.2008. His right arm was operated and an iron rod was inserted. It was stated that during the treatment of the petitioner at PGI, Chandigarh, he had to hire one attendant. It was further contended that the petitioner was a good professional player of Volly Ball, having future aim in this field, however due to said accident, he is unable to play the game. It was averred that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and the petitioner spent rupees one lac on his treatment, hence he sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 3. It was averred that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and the petitioner spent rupees one lac on his treatment, hence he sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 3. Respondents No. 1 & 2 by filing joint reply, admitted the accident, however, it has been averred that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of driver/respondent No. 2, rather it took place due to self negligence of the petitioner, as he was keeping his arm outside the window of the bus, thus the petitioner is not entitled for the compensation, as alleged. 4. The learned Court below framed the following issues on 17.06.2008, as under: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries on 21.05.2008 while travelling in vehicle No. HP-48-4530 driven by the respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner? OPP 2. If Issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR-2 4. Relief.” 5. After deciding Issues No.1 & 2 in favour of the petitioner and issue No. 3 against the respondents, the learned Tribunal below awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,82,000/- in favour of the petitioner, which was to be paid by respondents No. 1 & 3. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Tribunal has not correctly taken the income of the petitioner/injured, as he was only a student and learned Tribunal, without any proof has taken the income of the petitioner as Rs. 5,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, rather it was occurred due to negligence of the petitioner, as the petitioner has kept his arm outside the window of the bus. In these circumstances, the present appeal is required to be allowed and the award passed by the learned Tribunal below deserves to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/petitioner has argued that though the compensation for disability is on the lower side, but he has accepted the same. In these circumstances, the present appeal is required to be allowed and the award passed by the learned Tribunal below deserves to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/petitioner has argued that though the compensation for disability is on the lower side, but he has accepted the same. The evidence on record clearly proves that claimant/petitioner has sustained injuries, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, hence the present appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs. 9. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 10. The petitioner/injured, appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and filed an affidavit Ex. PW-2/A, and stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/respondent No. 2. In his cross-examination he admitted that at the place of accident, the work of metalling was going on and traffic was one way. To support his version, the petitioner has also examined PW-3, Ram Chander, co-passenger, who has authenticated and corroborated the testimony of the petitioner by deposing that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/respondent No. 2. PW-3, HC Pawan Kumar, has proved FIR Ex. PW-5/A and testified that FIR No. 101/2008 was registered on 21.05.2008. 11. In rebuttal, the respondents have examined RW- 1, Chaman, who tendered his Affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and RW- 2, Naresh Kumar, conductor of the said bus. Both of these witnesses have testified that the accident has taken place due to own negligence of the petitioner. In their cross-examination they have admitted that the petitioner was travelling in the bus in question. The injuries received by the claimant/petitioner were also admitted by him. 12. In cross-examination of RW-2, he admitted that the petitioner was travelling in the bus in question. From the evidence on record it is clear that the petitioner who was travelling in the bus has sustained injuries, as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver and PW-3, Ram Chander has also testified so. Copy of FIR Ex. PW-5/A, proves that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/respondent No. 2 and this fact is also corroborated by evidence on record. Copy of FIR Ex. PW-5/A, proves that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/respondent No. 2 and this fact is also corroborated by evidence on record. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of driver/respondent No. 2 and the learned Tribunal below has rightly decided this issue against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. 13. Now coming to the second argument that the compensation was awarded on the higher side. PW-1, Dr. Baldev Kumar, has testified that the petitioner has suffered 20 percent disability, which is permanent in nature. PW-4, Ram Chander has testified that after the said accident, the petitioner was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. PW-4, Naresh Kumar, has testified that he has brought the petitioner from Chandigarh in his taxi and taken the petitioner to Chandigarh twice. He also proved taxi bills Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B. PW-5, Jeevan Kumar, has testified that as per record, the petitioner was admitted in PGI on 22.05.2008, who was referred from Government Hospital Chamba and on 24.05.2005 he was discharged. He proved his discharge slip, Ex. PW-6/A and bills of expenditure of PGI, Ex. PW-6/C to Ex. PW-6/F, Mark P-11 and Ex. PW-6/G. 14. From the evidence on record, it is clear that at the time of accident, the age of the petitioner/injured was 22 years and at that relevant time, the income of the petitioner from agriculture, as evident from his affidavit was Rs. 5,000/- and to rebut this aspect, no evidence was produced by the respondents. Thus, the learned Tribunal below has not committed any illegality while taking the monthly income of the petitioner to Rs. 5,000/-. 15. The learned Tribunal below has awarded compensation on the different “heads” like, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyments of life, loss of earning and earning capacity of the petitioner due to 20 percent disability, medical expenses, special diet and attendant charges, which seems to be just, reasoned. At the same point of time, the expenses, for the travelling/taxi charges, which are Rs. 21,000/- cannot said to be excessive, as the petitioner was taken from PGI, Chandigarh to Kullu and then twice he was taken to PGI, Chandigarh, and bills Ex. PW/-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B are also proved on record. At the same point of time, the expenses, for the travelling/taxi charges, which are Rs. 21,000/- cannot said to be excessive, as the petitioner was taken from PGI, Chandigarh to Kullu and then twice he was taken to PGI, Chandigarh, and bills Ex. PW/-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B are also proved on record. Accordingly, the total compensation amount, which was awarded in favour of the petitioner comes to Rs. 2,82,000/-, which is just, reasoned. 16. The net result of the above discussion is that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal below is just and reasonable, hence needs no interference. The appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.