National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Paramjit Singh

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—This Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 03.10.2011 passed by the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, in File No. 307/Claim, titled as, Paramjit Singh v. Smt. Narinder Kour & anr., whereby an award of

Rs. 2,70,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of claimant-

respondent No. 1 herein, and against the appellant herein, who has been saddled with the liability to satisfy the awarded amount (for short,

impugned award), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

Brief Facts:

Claimant, respondent No. 1 herein, being the victim of vehicular accident approached the learned Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of

Rs. 13,05,000/-, as per the break-up given in paragraph 23 of the claim petition.

Appellant-insurer appeared before the learned Tribunal and following preliminary issue came to be framed:

Whether the claim petition is maintainable in the present form? OPP

In terms of order dated 29.08.2005 the learned Tribunal while deciding the aforesaid preliminary issue against the claimant-respondent No. 1

dismissed the claim petition. Claimant-respondent No. 1 dismissed the claim petition. Claimant-respondent No. 1 questioned the same before this

Court by the medium of appeal, which came to be allowed vide order dated 27.04.2007 with a direction to the Tribunal to decide the preliminary

issue as well as other issues after recording the evidence. Accordingly, the claim petition was remanded to the learned Tribunal for fresh trail in

accordance with law.

Accordingly, the following issues came to be framed by the learned Tribunal:

Whether an accident occurred on 13.11.2002 near Petrol Pump Bari Brahmana by the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing

No. JK02Q-0649 being driven in the hands of erring driver in which petitioner Paramjit Singh sustained grievous injuries? OPP

If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation; if so to what amount and from whom? OPP

Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective driving licence and drove the vehicle in

contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy and the vehicle did not have route permit, if so how? OPR-2

Whether no accident has occurred involving bodily injury to petitioner which is sine qua non for maintaining the claim petition as the petitioner

was assaulted as public servant to deter him from discharging his duty, if so how and what is its effect? OPR-2.

Relief. OP Parties.

Claimant was directed to lead evidence. He examined PW Surjeet Singh and also appeared in the witness box in order to prove his case.

Appellant-insurer examined RWs Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Khajuria.

As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 13.11.2002 at about 01:30 P.M. when the claimant was performing his traffic duty and was

standing at National Highway near Petrol Pump Bari Brahmana, the offending vehicle, i.e. Truck No. JK02Q-0649, which was being driven by its

driver, namely, Gurbachan Singh rashly and negligently, came from Railway Station side and hit the petitioner, as a result of which he sustained

multiple injuries and both of his legs got fractured. Claimant-respondent No. 1 remained on treatment for so many months and now has

permanently become disabled. Accordingly, he filed a claim. Petition before the Learned Tribunal and Sought Compensation.

Appellant-insurer resisted the petition on the ground that the claimant did not sustain injuries by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

offending vehicle, but actually he was assaulted by the said driver. An FIR to this effect also came to be registered at Police Station Bari

Brahmana. Accordingly, Challan was presented before the court of competent jurisdiction and the driver, namely, Gurbachan Singh came to be

acquitted. Thus, it has been claimed that the claim petition is not maintainable and appellant-insurer has no liability at all to satisfy the claim.

Claimant-respondent No. 1 in support of his case examined PW Surjeet Singh, who deposed that when the claimant was performing his duty on

the roadside at Bari Brahamana, the offending vehicle, which was coming from Punjab side and was being driven by its driver rashly and

negligently, hit the claimant, as a result of which he received injuries and was taken to hospital by his colleagues. Thus, it was claimed that the

injuries sustained by the claimant was the result of accident caused by the offending vehicle.

The witness, namely, Gurbachan Singh examined by the insurer-appellant deposed that he was driving the offending vehicle but he did not cause

any accident. He further deposed that he has been acquitted of the case registered against him by the police under Sections 353/332 of Ranbir

Penal Code (for short, RPC).

The next witness examined by the appellant-insurer, namely, Kuldeep Khajuria deposed in the cross-examination that the claimant sustained

injuries when he was hit by truck bearing No. JK02Q/0649 which was being driven by its driver, namely, Gurbachan Singh.

Thus, there is no evidence on the file to the effect that the injuries sustained by the claimant-respondent No. 1 was not the outcome of the use

of motor vehicle.

Issue No. 1:

It is a fact that there is no concrete evidence on the file to substantiate that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the offending vehicle

rashly and negligently and caused the accident. But, at the same time, as discussed hereinabove, that there is evidence on the file that claimant-

Paramjit Singh sustained grievous injuries when he was hit by the offending truck. Thus, the injuries sustained by the claimant was because of the

outcome of the use of motor vehicle.

Learned Tribunal after taking note of the Supreme Court judgments, reported as Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another Vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam

More, , has held that if the accident is the outcome of the use of motor vehicle and it causes death or bodily injury to a person, then the claim

petition under the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable.

The findings returned by the learned Tribunal are perfectly right. It would be appropriate to reproduce the extract of Section 165 of the Motor

Vehicles Act herein, which reads as under:-

Claims Tribunals.- (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of

adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor

vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.

The words used ""arising out of use of motor vehicles"" provide that it is not necessary that the claimant has to prove rash and negligent act on

the part of driver of the offending vehicle, but has to prove that he sustained injuries or the deceased lost the life out of use the of motor vehicle.

As discussed hereinabove, the witnesses examined by the appellant-insurer have specifically said that the claimant sustained injuries when he

was hit by the offending truck. Thus, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 are legal one and need no interference.

Issue No. 3:

Appellant-insurer did not prove issue No. 2, thus it failed to discharge onus, accordingly, it was decided against the appellant and in favour of

claimant.

Issue No. 4:

In view of the findings recorded on issue No. 1, this issue is also decided in favour of the claimant and against the appellant-insurer.

Issue No. 2:

Learned Tribunal after examining the pleadings/evidence and the documents on the file and also the medical bills so produced, has awarded the

minimum possible compensation in favour of claimant and against the appellant-insurer.

Claimant suffered multiple injuries, both of his legs got fractured, he came to be admitted in the hospital, thereafter he remained under treatment

for a period of one year and permanently became disabled, he had to spend lot of amount for his treatment, has been contesting the lis right from

the year 2003, but only a meagre amount of Rs. 60,000/- has been awarded under the head pain and sufferings. Further, the claimant has lost the

amenities of life during the period he was under treatment and remained on bed for so many months because of the accident, and only a petty

amount of Rs. 55,000/- has been awarded under the head loss of amenities of life. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,27,000/- under

the head medical expenses as per the bills on the file, Rs. 10,000/- for special diet and Rs. 18,000/- for transport and attendant charges, which are

also meagre. However, since the claimant has not questioned the same, therefore, I deem it proper to maintain the same. The amount awarded is

not excessive from any angle. Since the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurer, therefore, the appellant has rightly been saddled

with the liability. Accordingly, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on issue No. 2 are upheld.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned award merits to be upheld and the appeal merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned

award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. Registry is directed to send down the record along with a copy of this order.