Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 544 (HP)

Radha Devi v. Ankit Chauhan

2021-08-12

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2021
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The instant appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is maintained by the appellant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') for quashing and setting aside the impugned award, dated 14.1.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court), Shimla, in M.A.C No.4-S/2 of 2008 and to allow the claim petition. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 27.12.2006, around 3:00 p.m, petitioner was going to Ayurvedic Hospital, Chhota Shimla, when a car bearing registration No.HP-52-0872, came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others hit the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner suffered simple injuries. The accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The petitioner was treated upon in a hospital and expenses in the sum of Rs. 40,000/-, were incurred and have suffered 10% permanent disability. Thereafter, the petitioner claimed compensation by way of petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court), Shimla. 3. Respondent No.1 contested the petition by filing a reply whereby, preliminary objections of maintainability was taken. On merits, respondent No.1 denied that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident and if at all, learned Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for compensation, in that eventuality, his vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company and the driver was having valid and effective driving licence to ply it. Respondent No.2 has also filed its reply and contested the petition mainly on the ground that the petition is not maintainable, since no accident took place with this vehicle. Further, respondent No.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence to ply the vehicle. There was wilfull breach of the terms of the insurance policy and Insurance Company has no liability to indemnify the insurer and pay compensation to her. 4. The learned Tribunal below framed following issues on 3.10.2008 : "1. Whether the petitioner sustained the injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HP-52-0872 by respondent Sh. Ankit Chauhan, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as claimed. If so, its quantum and from whom? OP Parties. 3. Whether the petitioner sustained the injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HP-52-0872 by respondent Sh. Ankit Chauhan, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as claimed. If so, its quantum and from whom? OP Parties. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR. 4. Whether the petitioner has a cause of action? OPP. 5. Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so, its effect ? OPR-2. 6. Whether Sh. Ankit Chauhan was not holding and possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, as alleged? If so, its effect ?OPR-2. 7. Relief." 5. After deciding Issue Nos.1 to 4 against the petitioner, Issue Nos.5 and 6 being redundant, the learned tribunal below dismissed the petition. 6. Ms. Anubhuti Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the petitioner has proved on record the fact that she was hit by vehicle bearing registration No.HP-52A-0872 and submits that in MACT petition, strict Rules of evidence are not applicable, it is probability of evidence, which has to be taken into consideration. The petitioner has suffered 10% permanent disability in the accident. She has further submitted that in these circumstances the learned Court below should have allowed the petition and awarded her compensation on account of 10% permanent disability. 7. Mr. D.S. Kaith, learned counsel for respondent No.1, has argued that the vehicle involved in the accident was not the vehicle of respondent No.1, it was some other vehicle. The petitioner has rightly stated in the learned Court below. Further, the evidence to that effect has also the same version by way of the statement of Police officer, who recorded FIR and as the vehicle was different vehicle, no inference with the impugned award is required. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Aman Sood, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the vehicle which was insured, the same was not involved in the accident, so respondent No.2, is not liable to pay compensation, as it was some other vehicle, which has hit the petitioner and the petitioner has rightly stated so in FIR and before the learned tribunal below. He has argued that the instant appeal deserves dismissal with heavy costs. 9. He has argued that the instant appeal deserves dismissal with heavy costs. 9. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in criminal proceedings the cases are required to be proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, in civil cases, there is probability of evidence and in MACT petition, no strict proof is required and prays that the instant appeal may be allowed. 10. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the entire records of the case carefully. 11. In order to prove its case, PW-1, HC Yog Raj, has proved on record FIR, Ex.PW1/A. PW-2, Dr. Ramesh Chauhan, has issued MLC, which is Ex.PW2/A. PW-3, petitioner herself has proved on record copy of pariwar register Ex.PW3/B, prescription slips and bills Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-26, whereas in order to rebut the case of the petitioner, respondent No.1 has stepped into the witness box, as RW-1 and produced the copy of judgment passed by the learned Court below, vide which, respondent No.1, was acquitted mainly on the ground that identity of the offending vehicle and its driver could not be established. He has also proved on record driving licence Ex.RW1/B, copy of insurance policy Ex.RW1/C, Ex.RW1/D and copy of Registration Certificate Ex.RW1/E. 12. At this stage, taking into consideration the entire evidence, which has come on record, it is not the case of respondent No.1 that his vehicle bearing registration No.HP-52A-0872, was not there and on that day, it was not present in Shimla, when the accident had taken place and the petitioner-injured suffered 10% permanent disability. It is not expected from injured that she noted each and every digit of registration number of the vehicle, she has only noted the last and first number of the vehicle and could not note the figure 'A' i.e. HP-52A-0872. In these circumstances, this Court cannot held that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident, if such a hyper technical view is taken, the very purpose of an act, which is a legislation for the benefit of a injured person, who suffered injuries in the accident would be defeated. In these circumstances, this Court cannot held that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident, if such a hyper technical view is taken, the very purpose of an act, which is a legislation for the benefit of a injured person, who suffered injuries in the accident would be defeated. Even otherwise also, the basic rule in criminal cases is that the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas in civil cases, it is only the probability of evidence and in MACT cases, the Court should not be, so technical and if something is on record, to connect the vehicle of respondent No.1 that evidence should be taken into consideration, in a positive note. In these circumstances, this Court after going through the evidence of witnesses including the petitioner comes to the conclusion that it is the vehicle of respondent No.1, which was insured by respondent No.2-Insurance Company that has met with an accident and caused injury to the petitioner. 13. The salary of the petitioner, who was working with Mr. R.K. Anand, Advocate, as Domestic Help, can be taken around Rs. 5000/- per month, petitioner has suffered 10% permanent disability and at the time of accident, her age was 36 years. So, the loss of income because of 10% permanent disability is taken as Rs. 500/- per month that is 10% of Rs. 5000/- and for one year Rs. 6000/-, the multiplier of 15 is required to be applied i.e. 15 (500 x 12 x 15=Rs. 90,000/-). So, respondent No.2- Insurance Company is held liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 90,000/-, for disability. The petitioner is also entitled for medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-, including pain and suffering and no employment for days of treatment. This way petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) with 7% interest. 14. Further, at the time of accident, the vehicle was being plied in terms of the insurance policy, so respondent No.2-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. In these circumstances, respondent No.2-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner, which comes to Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) with 7% interest. 14. Further, at the time of accident, the vehicle was being plied in terms of the insurance policy, so respondent No.2-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. In these circumstances, respondent No.2-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner, which comes to Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) alongwith 7% interest, as on the date of accident, there was a valid insurance policy and the vehicle was being driven as per the terms of insurance policy including the fact that the driver was having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. 15. In view of the above, the instant appeal is allowed and respondent No.2-Insurance Company is held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(rupees one lac only) alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the payment. Keeping in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.