Harmesh Lal vs Sucha Singh and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This appeal is instituted against the award dated 5.1.2015 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Una, District Una in M.A.C. Petition No. 64/2012.

"Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the grant of Rs. five lakhs on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 19.9.2012 at about 1.30 A.M. near Petrol Pump Machhuwara, Tehsil Samrala, District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar Nawanshahar. The vehicle was owned by the appellant and was insured with respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 was sitting beside the appellant. When the tempo reached near the Petrol Pump, Machhuwara, it hit the parked truck on the road side. Respondent No. 1 suffered grievous injuries. He remained admitted in the hospital with effect from 19.9.2012 to 16.10.2012. He was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. His disability was assessed at 45%.

Petition was contested by the appellant as well as respondent No. 2. According to the appellant, on the relevant date, during night hours, he was informed by the wife of respondent No. 1 about the accident. He called the driver of the tempo to the spot where the injured was found present. Respondent No. 2 also filed reply. According to the averments contained in the reply, the driver was not possessing valid and effective driving licence and there was breach of mandatory provisions of the insurance policy.

Issues were framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 23.5.2014. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,98,974/- to respondent No. 1. Hence, this appeal.

I have heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the award dated 5.1.2015.

Respondent No. 1 has appeared as PW-6. He has filed his affidavit Ex. PW-6/A. He has also examined PW-3 Ujjagar Singh and PW-4 Kashmiri Lal. Respondent No. 1 has reiterated the averments contained in the petition in affidavit Ex. PW-6/A the manner in which the accident has taken place when he was going to sell his agriculture produce with two other persons, namely, PW-4 Kashmiri Lal and Lashkari Ram. He was taken in ambulance to Sector 32 Hospital, Chandigarh from where he was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh. He remained admitted in the hospital for a week. Thereafter, in the month of November, 2013 he was again admitted in Bharaj Hospital for a week. According to him, he sustained injuries in the accident. PW-4 Kashmiri Lal has corroborated the statement of respondent No. 1 the manner in which the accident has taken place.

PW-1 Dr. Piyush Nanda has proved disability certificate Ex. PW-1/A. PW-2 Dr. Rachpal Singh has deposed that he medically treated respondent No. 1. PW-3 Ujjagar Singh has led his evidence by filing affidavit Ex. PW-3/A. A steel rod was inserted in the arm of respondent No. 1. He was operated upon two times.

Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of appellant. The stand taken by the appellant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is that he was not driving the vehicle, rather respondent No. 1 has informed him about the accident and he went to the spot and took the injured to the hospital as per affidavit Ex. PW-2/A. However, in his cross-examination, he has deposed that the wife of respondent No. 1 came to his house around 11.30 P.M.-12.00 mid night. Thus, there is variance in the affidavit and statement recorded before the Court. It is also not believable that wife of respondent No. 1 would have gone to the appellant instead of going to the spot where the accident had taken place. The case set out by the appellant that he was not driving the vehicle has rightly been discarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after correctly appreciating the statements made by RW-1 Sanjeev Kumar and the appellant Harmesh Lal.

The appellant at the time of accident was not in a possession of valid and effective driving licence. Thus, there was breach of mandatory provisions of insurance policy Ex. RW-2/C. The appellant was the owner of the vehicle. In these circumstances, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated respondent No. 2 and held the appellant liable to indemnify the claimant.

CMP No. 2906/2015

The appellant has also moved an application under order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leading additional evidence. The purpose of order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not to enable the parties to fill up the lacuna. There was sufficient opportunity to the appellant to produce driving licence before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. If the appellant was in possession of the driving licence, he would have definitely produced the same before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Additional evidence can be permitted to be led only if the party satisfies the Court that despite due diligence, the document could not be produced. Consequently, the application is dismissed.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after taking into consideration the income of the claimant coupled with the disability to the extent of 45% has awarded just and fair compensation in favour of the claimant.

Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.