Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1351 (JHR)

Md. Seraj v. Ramesh Mahto

2019-07-26

ANANDA SEN

body2019
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 24th September, 2012 passed by the Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Accidents Claim Tribunal, Simdega in claim case being M.A.C.C. 37 of 1995, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. 3. The claimants stated that an accident had taken place on 04.02.1995 in which he sustained injury and was treated in hospital. He submits that thereafter he became disable because of the said accident. Claiming compensation, claimant had filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said claim application was numbered as M.A.C.C. 37 of 1995. In the said case issues were framed, which are as under: 1. Whether the claimant has any right to sue against the opposite party? 2. Whether the claimant became disabled when the bus bearing Registration No. BR 14P 0549 was in use. 3. Whether the opposite parties are owner and insurer of the above Bus? 4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to get any compensation? If yes, from whom and to what extent? 5. Whether other relief or relieves is the claimant entitled for? 4. Witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant. Claimant also exhibited some documents, which are as under: Exhibit 1 : Certified copy of FIR of G.R. 31/95 Exhibit 2 : Certificate of disablement of Md. Seraj Exhibit 3 : Driving Licence Exhibit 4 to 4/2 : Medical Bills Exhibit 5 : Ambulance Service Receipt Exhibit 6 : Xerox copy of R.C. Book of Bus No. BR 14P 0549 Exhibit 7 : Xerox copy of Insurance policy Exhibit 8 to 8/2 : Xerox copy of medical bills Exhibit 9 : Xerox copy of discharge slip 5. Opposite party No.1 also exhibited the insurance certificate, Xerox copy of owner book, Xerox copy of permit and driving licence. 6. Issues Nos.1 and 2 were taken up together and the Tribunal has held that claimant has got no right to sue against the opposite party. Further the claimant has failed to prove that he became disable when the Bus bearing No. BR 14P 0-549 met with accident, as because no injury report was filed on behalf of the claimant to show that on 04.02.1995 actually the claimant had sustained any injury due to said accident. Ultimately, the claim application was dismissed. Further the claimant has failed to prove that he became disable when the Bus bearing No. BR 14P 0-549 met with accident, as because no injury report was filed on behalf of the claimant to show that on 04.02.1995 actually the claimant had sustained any injury due to said accident. Ultimately, the claim application was dismissed. 7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-appellant submits that the learned Tribunal could not have rejected the entire claim application on hyper technical grounds. He submits that even if the disability certificate is of a recent year, i.e., 2012, and even for the sake of argument it is admitted that the claimant-appellant has not become disable, yet, admittedly there were documents on record to suggest that the claimant-appellant had sustained injuries and was in hospital for 14 days. He submits that for getting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is not necessary that a person should become disable. An injury sustained due to accident will also attract compensation. He submits that the Tribunal has committed illegality by rejecting the claim application after disbelieving the disability certificate. 8. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, submits that the accident had taken place in the year 1995, but, the disability certificate is of 2012. He submits that the claim application was dismissed for default and after a very long period, same was restored. 9. After going through the impugned judgment including the Lower Court Records, I find that Exhibit 4 series are the medical bills, Exhibit 5 is the Ambulance Service Receipt, Exhibits 8 and 9 are copies of medical bills and discharge slips. These documents suggest that the claimant-appellant was treated after accident and some injuries might have taken place. Even if the disability certificate is not taken into account, there are evidence to suggest that the claimant-appellant sustained injuries arising out of the accident. If the Tribunal, ultimately, disbelieves the disability certificate, the effect would be on the quantum of compensation. Disbelieving the disability certificate will not automatically lead to rejecting the claim application itself. Even if the disability certificate is not taken into account, there are evidence to suggest that the claimant-appellant sustained injuries arising out of the accident. If the Tribunal, ultimately, disbelieves the disability certificate, the effect would be on the quantum of compensation. Disbelieving the disability certificate will not automatically lead to rejecting the claim application itself. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi & Others versus Satbir Singh & Others reported in (2013) 14 SCC 345 and in Vimla Devi and Others versus National Insurance Company Limited and Another reported in (2019) 2 SCC 186 , has held that the claim application cannot be turned down on a hyper technical ground. Some opportunity should be given to the claimant to prove his case. Thus, after going through the judgment and records, I find that the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Tribunal has rejected the claim of the claimant-appellant on a very hyper technical ground, which should not have been done. The Tribunal should have taken into account the documents and other materials on record other than the disability certificate, before coming to a conclusion. Disability Certificate solely should not have been relied upon by the Tribunal in presence of other documents. 10. Thus, I find that the Tribunal needs to rehear the entire claim application afresh on the evidence on record. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 24th September, 2012 passed by the Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Accidents Claim Tribunal, Simdega in claim case being M.A.C.C. 37 of 1995, is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal to rehear the parties on merits and decide the claim application afresh. Since the parties are represented before this Court through their counsel, they are directed to appear before the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Simdega within a month from today. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Simdega is directed to dispose of the original claim application of the claimant-appellant within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after hearing the parties. 11. This appeal, thus, stands allowed. 12. Let a copy of this order along with the Lower Court Records be transmitted to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Simdega forthwith.