Krishan Kant and Upinder Kumar vs Pardeep Kumar Saini

Dev Darshan, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellants who are the owner and driver of the tractor involved in the accident.

The claimant/respondent instituted a petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him caused by a collision between his scooter bearing No. CH-01-R-0620 which was being driven by him and tractor No. HR-22-5225 driven rashly and negligently by appellant No.2 herein. The facts pleaded were that the petitioner dealing in glassware, hardware, sunmica and building material etc., under the name and style of Saini Glass House in Mehatpur Bazar, Una. He pleaded his monthly earning from his shop to be Rs.15,000/- per month. On 11th October, 2003 at around 12.30 P.M. when he was on his way towards industrial area Mehatpur, the tractor involved in the accident suddenly appeared from the opposite side and collided with the scooter as a result he fell down and sustained multiple injuries for which he was treated at Zonal Hospital, Una and thereafter at Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana where he remained admitted as indoor patient from 11th October, 2003 to 7th November, 2003. The respondent pleaded that he was operated upon and a K-wire fixed in his fourth finger of the right hand and one finger was amputated. He spent Rs. 2 lacs on medical treatment, Rs.20,000/- on special diet, Rs.10,000/- on conveyance and Rs.30,000/- on an attendant. The claimant/respondent pleaded the rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant No.2 herein and claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.10 lacs which includes business loss etc.

The appellants herein admitted that the tractor in question was owned by them but denied that it was involved in the accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal settled five issues. The first issue called for determination as to whether the tractor was involved in the accident as pleaded and whether it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Second issue related to the quantum of compensation. Onus of these first two issues was on the claimant. The appellant''s claim trial of two issues regarding maintainability and non joinder of necessary party.

Adverting to the first issue, the learned Tribunal holds that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor. To arrive at this conclusion, the learned Tribunal relied upon the evidence of the respondent/claimant who appeared as PW7, Chhaju Ram Kaushal, PW3 and Gurbax Singh, Constable, Police Station, Una who proved FIR Ex.PW1/A. On the second issue, the learned Tribunal took into consideration the evidence of PW4 Dr. Komal Malik of Anandraj Malik Hospital, Mehatpur, PW5 Dr. N.S. Dogra member of the Medical Board, which assessed the disability of the claimant/respondent and PW6 Dr. Jaspreet Singh, Registrar, Department of Orthopeadics at the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. On the other issues, the learned Tribunal hold that they were not established on the evidence on record. In totality a sum of Rs.1,39,170/- was awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization.

The appellants (respondents before the Tribunal) are now in appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urges a number of grounds in support of his contention that the award passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. Learned counsel urges that there are material contradictions in the evidence brought on record and that, in fact no accident took place. Learned counsel referred to the photographs Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 to urge that there is no number plate on the tractor and that what has been mentioned in the petition as also stated in evidence of the witnesses is a fabrication. He then submits that from the evidence of the eye witness as also the statements made before the police etc., the direction from which tractor was approaching is at variance and it is absolutely contrary to what the witnesses stated in the Court.

This submission cannot be accepted. PW3 Chajju Ram Kaushal has described the accident in a graphic detail. He states that on the fateful day, he was going to his industry from Main Bazar and noticed a tractor with a "Hal" (plough) coming from the industrial area side and a scooter proceedings towards that side. He says that "Hal" (plough) struck the scooter as a result the claimant/respondent who was driving the scooter fell down and sustained injuries. He was thereafter rushed to Anand Raj Malik Hospital for treatment. To similar effect is the statement of claimant Pradeep Kumar, PW7. The fact that the respondent sustained injuries is corroborated by PW4 Dr. Komal Malik of Anand Raj Malik Hospital, Mehatpur. He states that on that date the respondent/claimant was brought to the hospital in an injured condition when he was given first aid by him. He treated him for these injuries. Ex.PW4./A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4./D were receipts for treatment. PW6 Dr. Jaspreet Singh, Registrar, Department of Orthopeadic, Dayanad Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana states that the claimant/respondent was admitted in hospital on 11th October, 2003 and discharged on 7th November, 2003. He described in detail the injuries on the right thigh, right hand and amputation of ring finger of the right hand of the claimant. He proves on record bills Ex. P1 and states that the expenditure would not be less than Rs. 30 to 40 thousand. PW1 Shri Gubax Singh, constable has proved on record Ex.PW1/A which is the first information report. A reading of this evidence, clearly suggests and proves that the tractor owned by the appellant No.1 herein was involved in the accident. The submission that there are major contradictions in the evidence cannot be accepted. Even if the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellants is accepted, the evidence of the eye witness PW3 Chajju Ram Kaushal cannot be discarded nor his testimony can be disbelieved as there is nothing on record to suggest that what he saw on that date was a figment of his imagination. When coupled with the other evidence as noticed by me, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Tribunal. On the question as to whether the tractor actually had a number plate or not, all that I need to say is that the photographs would have taken after a long time after the accident, the possibility that such number plate has in fact been dislodged etc., cannot be ruled out. On the question of the direction, it looses all significance when the testimonies of PW3 as also that of the claimant which are clear and cogent, are considered. This submission, therefore, requires to be rejected out rightly.

On the question of compensation, submission was made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the disability is not proved on record. Ex.PW5/A is disability certificate which has been proved by Dr. N.S. Dogra, PW5, who was the member of the Medical Board. Adverting to the quantum, the learned Tribunal is frugal in granting compensation. What I find is that the evidence of the petitioner has not been accepted in toto. He is granted only Rs.30,000/- for loss of earning when the learned Tribunal assesses the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.200/- and annual loss of Rs.2400/- and multiplier of 15 has been adopted. I do not find anything to suggest that it is on the higher side. The learned Tribunal rejected the contention of the respondent/claimant to assess the loss of earning at Rs.15000/- per month. Similarly the expenses of the attendant have been assessed at Rs.6000/- and the medical expenses on the basis of cash memos and bills etc., Ex. P1 to Ex.P58 assessed at Rs. 49,170/- The claim for conveyance expenses etc., has been rejected in view of the fact that no documentary evidence was produced. The Tribunal also rejected the claim of Rs.70,000/- made for under going plastic surgery etc. In totality a sum of Rs.1,06,170 has been awarded in addition to pain and suffering for which the amount is assessed at Rs.25,000/-. Looking to the nature of the evidence on record and the observations made by the learned Tribunal, I do not find any infirmity in the award passed. This appeal is dismissed accordingly. No order as to the costs.