Ram Chand Malik vs Sarwan Singh and Others

K.S. Kumaran, J.—FAOs No. 633 and 634 of 1994 were ordered to be heard together with CR Nos. 4034 and 4035 of 1991, but at the time of addressing arguments, these two revision petitions were not pressed by the counsel for the petitioners therein and, therefore, they are accordingly dismissed, though, we will make a brief reference to the circumstances under which these revision petitions came to be filed.

FAO Nos. 633 and 634 of 1994 arise out of the common judgment rendered on 29.8.1991 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra in MACT case Nos. 19 of 1990, 105 of 1990, 29 of 1990 and 30 of 1990. All these MACT cases were filed by the respective petitioners claiming compensation either for the death or" injuries or the damage to the vehicle in a motor accident which took place on the night to 9.12.1988. We dispose of all these matters by this common judgment.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, after trial, allowed M.A.C.T. Case No. 19 of 1990 qua the first two petitioners only by granting them Rs. 96,000/- as compensation with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of their petition. The Tribunal also granted an award in favour of the petitioner in M.A.C.T. Case No. 30 of 1990, viz. Ram Singh for Rs. 38,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of his petition on account of the damage to'' his vehicle. But, the Tribunal fastened the liability on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 only, namely Daljit Singh, the driver and Ram Chand, the owner of the truck No. HYS-3396. The Insurance Company which had insured that vehicle as also the other respondents, however, were not fastened with any liability. Therefore, Ram Chand the owner of the vehicle No. HYS-3396 has filed these two FAOs against the award of the Tribunal.

The facts which are necessary for our purpose, are as follows :-

(1) On the night of 9.12.1988, Surinder Singh (since deceased) started from Panchkula to Faridabad as a driver in Truck No. PUI-8197. At about 12.15 at midnight when Surinder Singh was driving the said truck slowly and reached near Village Masana, the 1st respondent-Daljit Singh coming from the opposite side, driving his truck No. HYS-3396 rashly and negligently come to the wrong side, hit against truck No. HNQ-1157, which was going ahead of the truck of deceased Surinder Singh, and then hit against truck No. PUI-8197 driven by Surinder Singh, deceased. Surinder Singh, who received fatal injuries as a result thereof, died. That is why, his parents, Sarwan Singh and Preet alongwith brothers and sisters of the deceased Surinder Singh, filed an MACT Case No. 19 of 1990 claiming Rs. three lakhs as compensation for the death of Surinder Singh.

Ram Singh who is owner of the truck No. PUI-8197 driven by the deceased, filed a MACT case No. 30 of 1990 claiming Rs. two lakhs as compensation on account of damage caused to the truck. Gurbachan Singh and Tejpal Singh, who claimed to have sustained injuries in this accident, filed MACT case No. 29 of 1990 and 105 of 1990 respectively claiming compensation, but these applications were dismissed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra and, therefore, we are not concerned with these two cases, viz. M.A.C.T. cases No. 29 and 105 of 1990.

The first and second respondents before the Tribunal, namely, Daljit Singh and Ram Chand, driver and owner of the truck No. HYS-3396 respectively, filed a joint written statement urging that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. According to them, deceased Surinder Singh was driving his truck immediately following truck No. HNQ-1157, without leaving any space in between, and also rashly and negligently. They allege that the truck No. HNQ-1157 which was being driven rashly and negligently, hit against the truck No. HYS-3396 with the result that all the hind-wheels of truck No. HYS-3396 went off. They also allege that the truck No. PUI-8197 driven by the deceased, became uncontrollable and hit against the truck No. HYS-3396. So, according to these respondents 1 and 2, the deceased and the driver of the other truck No. HNQ-1157 were responsible for the accident.

The third respondent-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. which had insured the truck No. HYS-3396 also took similar pleas and urged that its liability to the third party was restricted to Rs. 1,50,000/-, though, it denied its liability.

Similarly, the respondents other than the sixth respondent - Ram Singh, who was also the petitioner in MACT Case No. 30 of 1990, had denied their liability.

As stated already, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal fastened the liability to pay compensation on respondents 1 and 2 only, namely Daljit Singh and Ram Chahd, the driver and owner of truck No. HYS-3396 respectively. The Tribunal exonerated the third respondent-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., on the ground that Daljit Singh, driver of the truck No. HYS-3396 had not proved that he had a valid driving licence to drive the truck at the time of accident. That is why, Ram Chand, the owner of the offending truck No. 3396 has come forward with these two appeals.

We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records. The learned Tribunal placed reliance upon the evidence of P.W.3-Gurbachan Singh, who travelled as a second driver in truck No. PUI-8197 driven by the deceased-Surinder Singh, and did not place reliance upon the evidence of R.W.1-Daljit Singh, the driver of truck No. HYS-3396. We have also gone through the evidence of P.W.3-Gurbachan Singh. P.W. 3 in his evidence before the Tribunal had stated that he was employed as a second driver for track No. PUI-8197 that on the date of accident, he was travelling in the said truck sitting on the left of the driver, that truck No. HNQ-1157 was going ahead of their truck, while the truck bearing No. HYS-3396 came from Delhi side (opposite side), hit against truck No. HNQs-1157 and then against their truck. According to him, truck No. 3396 came at a high speed and did not sound the horn. He also stated that in this accident, Surinder Singh died. According to P.W.3 it was on his statement that F.I.R. (Ex. A-3) was recorded and that this accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of truck No. 3396. In cross-examination, he stated that the right front side of truck No. 1157 and then the truck No. 3396 collided with the truck No. 8197. He also stated that after hitting truck No. 8197, the truck No. 3396 turned turtle in the middle of the road, and all the four rear wheels of the said truck No. 3396 went off from their axles. He denied the suggestion that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of truck No. 1157 or that he was sleeping and did not see the accident. We find that there is nothing to discard the evidence of P.W.3-Gurbachan Singh and his evidence shows that the truck No.3396 coming from the opposite side hit against truck No. 1157, which was going ahead of truck No.8197 and then hit against truck No.8197 driven by the deceased. Therefore the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of truck No. HYS-3396 has to be accepted. On the other hand, the evidence of R.W.1-Daljit Singh (driver of truck No. HYS-3396) that it was the driver of truck No.1157 who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and hit against HYS-3396 and that the truck No.8197 hit behind truck No.1157 cannot be accepted. He admitted that he was charge-sheeted for this accident, and that he had not filed any complaint against the drivers of the other two trucks. He has not examined anybody else other than himself in this regard. Therefore, taking into consideration all these factors, we affirm the finding of the learned tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck No. HYS-3396.

So far as the compensation given to the parents of the deceased-Surinder Singh is concerned we are of the view that the same cannot be said to be excessive. The evidence of Preeto, mother of the deceased- Surinder Singh shows that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,000/- per mensem and he used to pay them Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 1500/- per mensem. Her evidence also shows that the deceased was a bachelor and was 25 years old at the time of his death. She has also given her age as 40 years. Therefore, the deceased would have lived for another 50 years, while she may also live for another 30 years. In such circumstances, even if we take his annual contribution to help of his parents, after all deductions, comes to Rs. 4000/-, the compensation awarded to the petitioners i.e. Rs. 96,000/- cannot be said to be excessive. The learned counsel for the appellant has also not been able to show anything against the same.

So far as Ram Singh, the petitioner in MACT case No. 30 of 1990 whose vehicle PUI-8197-the deceased was driving and was damaged in the accident, is concerned, the learned Tribunal granted him Rs. 38,000/- as compensation. P.W.-1 the Surveyor who has assessed the damaged caused to this vehicle, had assessed the damage at Rs. 54,431.60 paise. We find no reason to discard his evidence. The learned Tribunal deducted Rs. 13,913.30 towards depreciation and Rs. 2500/- towards the approximate value of the salvage. Ultimately, he awarded a sum of Rs38,000/- as compensation to Ram Singh, petitioner in MACT case No. 30 of 1990. Learned counsel for the appellant, here again, has not been able to show that the same is in any way excessive.

Now, we are left with the question of liability to pay these amounts. In view of the fact that the driver of truck No. HYS-3396 is responsible for having caused the accident, the driver and the owner of the vehicle are, therefore, liable to pay the compensation. The further question is whether the Insurance Co. namely, the third respondent-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is also liable to pay the compensation or not. The learned Tribunal framed 8 issues for determination. The 5th issue is as follows:-

"Whether the vehicle was driver by a person not holding a valid driving licence, R.C. and permit and the vehicle was not driven in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Insurance Police? OPR-7"

While discussing this issue, the learned Tribunal observed that it had to determine whether the first respondent-Daljit Singh, the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence on the date Of accident, that Daljit Singh who had appeared in the witness box as RW-1 had not proved that he had a valid driving licence on that date, and that his bald statement that he possesses a driving licence, which is in the criminal court was not sufficient to hold that he had a valid driving licence. The Tribunal also observed that it was for him to place on record at least a certified copy of the same. Therefore, the Tribunal decided the issue against the first respondent. Ultimately, the Tribunal did not pass the award against the third respondent-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. But, as the learned counsel for the appellant rightly contended, the third respondent-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. had not pleaded in its reply that Daljit Singh did not possess a valid driving licence on the date of accident and, therefore, it was not necessary at all for either Daljit Singh or the appellant-Ram Chand to prove that Daljit Singh had a valid driving licence on the date of accident. It was only the 5th respondent-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. which had insured the other truck No. HNQ-1157 that had taken the plea that the driver of truck No. HNQ-1157 was not having a valid driving licence. Similar plea was taken by the 7th respondent-New India Insurance Co. Ltd. with regard to the driver of the vehicle PUI-8197. Therefore, in these circumstances, the learned Tribunal was not right in holding that Daljit Singh, driver of HYS-3396 had not proved that he was having a valid driving licence on the date of accident and thereby exonerating the third respondent-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., which had not taken such a plea at all. Therefore, we find the third respondent is also liable to pay the compensation awarded to the petitioners in MACT case No. 19 of 1990 and 30 of 1990 by the learned Tribunal. The two appeals, therefore, will have to be allowed to that extent.

We have already stated that the learned counsel for the revision petitioners did not press the civil revision Nos. 4034 and 4035 of 1991. Ram Chand, the appellant, who is the owner of the vehicle HYS-3396, after the Tribunal passed the award, had filed the review petition before the Tribunal bringing forth the fact that the third respondent-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. had not denied that the driver, Daljit Singh had a valid driving licence and, therefore, the Insurance Company should also be made liable. This review petition was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to review its own orders. It is against the dismissal of the review petition that the appellant Ram Chand had filed these two revision petitions which were referred by the learned Single Judge for decision by a larger Bench. In view of our finding in the appeals, these petitions have to be dismissed.

FAO Nos. 633 and 634 of 1994 are allowed to the extent that the third respondent-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is also held liable to pay the compensation awarded, who shall pay the same within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The sums of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 19,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of preferring these two appeals shall be refunded to him.

Civil revision petition Nos. 4034 and 4035 of 1991 are dismissed.