Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 729 (HP)

Sat Pal v. Jatinder Kumar

2022-11-22

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Heard. 2. By way of instant appeal, the award dated 30.11.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) Una, H.P. in MAC Case No. 58 of 2011 has been challenged by the appellant/claimant on the grounds that he has not been awarded just and adequate compensation. 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of appeal are that the claimant/appellant preferred petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, the ‘Act’) seeking compensation on account of injury/disability suffered by him as a result of motor vehicle accident involving motorcycle No. HP-20D-0842. It was alleged that the claimant on 10.09.2010 at about 8.30 P.M. alighted from his car after parking the same on left side of the road and in the meantime, respondent No.1 came driving motorcycle No. HP-20D-0842, in a rash and negligent manner, in a wrong direction and hit the appellant by his speeding motorcycle. The claimant/appellant suffered multiple injuries. He underwent surgical intervention qua his both legs. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly contested the petition. The factum of accident as alleged by the claimant/appellant was denied. It was submitted that the claimant/appellant slipped on the road and struck against the motorcycle. 5. Respondent No.3 filed separate reply. As per said respondent, motorcycle CH-04H-3265 was owned by him, but he had transferred the ownership to respondent No.2 on 17.01.2010 and the Licensing and Registration Authority, Chandigarh had already issued NOC for such transfer on 01.02.2010. It was alleged that after such sale, the possession of the motorcycle in question was with respondent No.2. 6. The insurer/respondent No.4 also contested the petition and claimed to be absolved from liability on the grounds of breach of terms of policy. Respondent No.4 specifically contended that the factum of transfer of vehicle by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.2, was not reported to the insurer and such breach was in violation of Section 157 of the Act. 7. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether petitioner Sat Pal sustained injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-20-D 0842 by respondent No. 1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPRs 1 to 4. 4. Whether petitioner Sat Pal sustained injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-20-D 0842 by respondent No. 1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPRs 1 to 4. 4. Whether petitioner has no locus-standi to file the present petition against respondent No.3? OPR3 (corrected). 5. Whether respondent No1 was to holding valid and effective driving license to drive motorcycle No. HP-20D- 0842 at the time of accident? OPR4 6. Whether motorcycle No. HP-20D -0842 was being driven without valid registration certificate and fitness certificate? OPR4 7. Whether motorcycle No. HP-20D-0842 was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and Motor Vehicle Act? OPR4 8. Relief. 8. Issues No. 1, 2 and 7 were decided in affirmative, remaining issues were decided in negative. The claim petition was allowed and a sum of Rs.82,800/- was adjudged payable to the claimant/appellant on account of compensation alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition. Learned Tribunal found the breach of Section157 of the Act, however, the insurer was directed to satisfy the award in the first instance and liberty was reserved with insurer to recover the same from the insured or the transferee, as the case may be. 9. The appellant by way of instant appeal, has alleged that he has not been awarded adequate compensation. 10. As per evidence on record, appellant had suffered disability to the extent of 5% in relation to bilateral lower limbs. The disability certificate Ex.PW-5/A stood proved by PW-5 Dr. D.K. Sharma. The disability was adjudged to be permanent in nature. 11. Appellant claimed compensation with the allegations that due to injury/disability suffered by him, he was not able to drive, milch cattle and perform agricultural work. The learned Tribunal, however, found that the claimant/appellant had not adduced any independent corroboration to his stand of having become incapable to do physical work. The statement of PW-5 did not suggest any such inference. The claimant/appellant had examined PW-5 in support of his case, but strangely no opinion was sought from him regarding functional disability, if any, suffered by the claimant/appellant. The disability certificate clearly reveals the disability was assessed at 5% in relation to both lower limbs. The statement of PW-5 did not suggest any such inference. The claimant/appellant had examined PW-5 in support of his case, but strangely no opinion was sought from him regarding functional disability, if any, suffered by the claimant/appellant. The disability certificate clearly reveals the disability was assessed at 5% in relation to both lower limbs. Though in cross-examination, the disability is stated to be qua whole of the body to the extent of 50%, but the percentage so mentioned, on the face of it, appears to be a bonafide error in writing. 12. The learned Tribunal assessed the loss of future earning to the tune of Rs.4800/- per annum. The age of the claimant/appellant was 53 years and a multiplier of 11 was applied. Additionally, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was allowed in favour of the claimant/appellant for medicine and treatment charges, Rs. 5,000/- under the head ‘Attendant Charges’ and Rs. 10,000/- for pain and sufferings. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 82,800/- was awarded. 13. The claimant/appellant examined himself as PW-6 and claimed Rs.10,000/- as monthly income without disclosing the source of such income. He further submitted that he is not able to drive vehicle to run to indulge in agricultural pursuits and to milch the cattle etc. and he had become dependent for such purpose on others. He had kept a helper for such purpose on the payment of Rs.5000/- per month, however, there was no corroboration to the statement of the appellant/claimant. Noticeably, there is no medical opinion regarding the functional disability of appellant as noticed above. Thus, in light of evidence on record, the findings recorded by learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with. Nothing has been shown to this Court that the assessment of annual income of the claimant/appellant was wrongly assessed at Rs.4800/- per annum by adjudging the functional disability 10%, as some amount of guess work is permissible. The multiplier has also rightly been applied as the age of the claimant/appellant was 53 years at the time of accident. 14. In light of above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.