Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another vs Dhanwant Singh and another

Harbans Lal, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ludhiana. (hereinafter to be called the Tribunal), d ated December 7,1978(sic) by the insurer and the owner of Car No. PNU 5686 (hereinafter to be called the offending vehicle) whereby an amount of Rs 19200/-was awarded as compensation to Dhanwant Singh. injured, respondeent.

On August 9, 1971, at about 10:15 P.M. Dhanwant Singh, Respondent, was driving his three-wheeler (scooter rickihaw) and was proceeding towards Ludhiana on the Ludhiana-Pakhowal Road, The offending vehicle belonging to the Punjab Agricultural University, Appellant No. 2, driven by Sukhdev Singh Respondent No. 2 came from the opposite direction at a fast speed and struck against the three-wheeler which was going on the correct side of the road. As a result of the impact, the three wheeler was smashed, its driver Dhanwant Singh as well as one Harbhajan Singh who was in the said three wheeler as a passenger, received injuries as a result of which, both of them became unconscious The occurrence was witnessed by Shri Manjtt Singh, Advocate, of Ludhiana who also lodged the first information report with the Police u/s 279 338 and 427 Indian Penal Code, against Sukhdev Singh, driver of the offending vehicle. Both the injured were removed in a tonga driven by Surinder Singh to the Brown Hospital, Ludhiana.

3 According to the statement of Dr R.K. Summan, P.W. 2, who had examined Dhanwant Singh, Respondent, the injuries on his person were grievous and he remained under treatment in the hospital from August 10, 1971 to October 21, 1971. The fracture of the right leg and the right thigh had not united sufficiently for the purpose of carrying weight. While the disability of the right leg was opined to be permanent, its length had also been shortened, The victim had to undergo two operations. He was aged 28 year at the time of the accident and had a wife and daughter to support as well as a dependent mother aged about 48 years, as his father had already died.

The claim petition was filed by Dhanwant Singh, Respondent, against the Registrar of the Punjab Agricultural University as the owner, Sukhdev Singh as the driver, of the offending vehicle and the Life Insurance Company Unit, as the insurer of the offending vehicle. All of them contested the same and filed separate written statements.

After perusal of the evidence adduced on both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident resulting in injuries to Dhanwant Singh, Respondent, driver of the three-wheeler, had been caused by Sukhdev Singh, resoondent, by his rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, that the offencing vehicle belonged to the Punjab Agricultural University and had been registered was given to the Punjab Motors, the repairing shap, for the purpose of its repairs and that Sukhdev Singh, Respondent, was employed as mechanic with the said repairer are had taken the offending vehicle and was driving the same for the purpose of testing at the time of the accident The Tribunal also concluded that the monthly income of Dhanwant Singh, was about Rs. 30/ per month and that on account of the injuries sustained by him at the time of the accident, has earning capacity had been reduced by 50 per cent , and that he will require about Rs 150/- per month to supplement his income so as to lead a normal life. Keeping in view his age, Rs. 15,000/- WERE awarded as compensation, Besides, Rs. 3,000/- were also awarded in lieu of medical expenses and Rs l,200/ on account of the repair of the three-wheeler which had been considerably) damaged. Out of the total compsnsation of Rs. 19,200/-, the insurer-Appellant was held to be liabe to pay Rs. 18,000/- and Sukhdev Singh, Respondent was held liable to pay Rs. 1,200/-.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants, has seriouOy challenged only one finding of the tribunal that Sukhdev Singh, Respondent, was employed with the repairer, that offending vehicle at the time of accident, for the purpose of testing it. It was also urged that Parkash Singh, R.W. 2, in whose workshop the offending vehicle had been entrusted for the purpose of repairs, was an independent contractor and as such, the owner of the vehicle, that is, the Punjab Agricultural University cannot be held to be vicariously liable and as a consequence, the insurer has also to be excluded from liability. It has also been emphasised that there is absolutely evidence on the record to show that Sukhdev Singh, Respondent, was employed as mechauis(sic) with the repairer and was driving the offending vehicle much less driving it for the purpose of testing it. Reliance has been placed, in this regard on Govinderjula v. Govindraja 1966 A.C.J. 153

This contention is not tenable. It is not disputed that the offending vehicle had been entrusted to the Punjab Motors for repairs whose proprietor was Parkash Singh, R.W 2, The said Parkash Singh also admitted this fact in his statement. He, however denied that Sukhdev Sirgh, Respondent was employed with him as a mechanic or he was driving the offending vehicle. When confronted with the letter Exhibit R.W. 2/A, dated August, 17, 1978 -which had been addressed by him to the Store Purchase Officer, Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana, he admitted his signature on the same, but deposed that he had rot read this letter and that he was only made to sign the same for the purpose of getting a no objection certificate from the Unviersity for the purpose of securing the offending vehicle from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, on supardari. According to this letter the proprietor of the repair shop admitted that a criminal case arising out of the accident from the offending vehicle had been registered by the Police against Sukhdev Singh, Respondent, who was their mechanic and had used the offending vehicle. A bare perusal of this letter leaves no manner of doubt that Sukhdev Singh, Respondent, was employed with the repairers as their mechanic and was driving the offending Vehicle at the time of the accident. This fact was also proved from the statements of the eye-witnesses Including that of Shri Manjit Singh, Advocate, Ludhiana, who had witnessed the occurrence and also knew the said Sukhdev Singh.

According to the learned Counsel for the Appellants, there was no evidence that the said Sukhdev Singh, Respondent was driving the vehicle at the time of me accident for the purpose of testing. According to the averments in paragraph 24 of the written statement filed by Sukhdev Singh, the offending vehicle was with the workshop of the Punjab Motors for certain repairs and that the same had been taken out for test drive Though he did not admit the accident and according to his further averment, before the accident this vehicle had broken down at a short distance from village Dad at about sun set time and as a consequence, the vehicle had been locked and left unattended in order to get necessary implements and also a spare tyre. According to him, in fact the three wheeler, had struck against the offending vehicle when the latter was in a stationary position due to the rashness and negligence of the three wheeler driver. This part of the version, that the offending vehicle had broken down before the accident and that the three wheeler driven by Dhanwant Singh Respondent, had struck against the former which was in a stationary position at the time of the accident, was rightly disbelieved by the Tribunal in view of the cogent and convincing evidence of the eye witnesses. However, the averment in the written statement clearly established that it was Sukhdev Singh, Respondent, who bad taken the offending vehicle out for the purpose of test driving. This being so, it has to be held that the offending vehicle was being driven by Sukhdev Singh Respondent as an employee of the repairer is the course of the execution of the repair work. In these circumstances, the ratio of the decision in Shantibai and Others Vs. The Principal, Govindram Sakseria Technological Institute and Others, , is of no help to the case of the Appellants, which on the other hand, lends strong support to the case of the Respondent claimant

No other point has been urged.

In view of the above discussion this appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee is fixed at Rs. 200/-