Ratnu vs Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insu. Co. Ltd. And Others

Tashi Rabstan, J

The appeal in hand has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 20.07.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udhampur in case file No. 16/Claims titled “Ratnu vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. & ors”, dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant.

Two claim petitions, one bearing File No. 15/Claims titled “Gori Shankar & ors. Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. & ors” and another File No. 16/Claims titled “Ratnu vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. & ors” have been filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udhampur arising out of a road traffic accident which took place on 01.02.2007. The case file No. 15/Claims was allowed and the case file No. 16/Claims was dismissed by the Tribunal.

The brief facts of the case is that one Parveen Kumar and Ratnu alias Tuttu, appellant herein along with others were travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No. JK14A/6272 from Village Sunetar towards Ramnagar. The said vehicle was being driven by one Daulat Singh-respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which it met with an accident near Mora Daudla of Village Sunetar, Tehsil Ramnagar, resulting in death of Parveen Kumar and injuries to appellant herein along with other passengers travelling in the said vehicle. The deceased was a driver by profession having monthly earning of Rs. 6,000/-whereas the appellant herein was working as a labourer with monthly income of Rs. 6,000/-. An FIR No. 08/2007 under Sections 279/337/388/304-A RPC was registered in respect of the said accident with the Police Station.

It is contended in the appeal that the appellant suffered multiple injuries on pelvis/rupture urethra and rest of the body and was treated in SDH Ramnagar and District Hospital, Udhampur and claimed Rs, 4,00,000/-. Further contended that the insured vehicle was being driven in violation of the permit as it was carrying passengers more than the permissible capacity and the driver of the offending vehicle was also not having a valid and effective driving license. The respondent No. 1, as such, claimed that the liability, if any, cannot be fastened on the insurance company. The respondent No. 2, who is owner of the offending vehicle contended that the vehicle is insured with the respondent No. 1, so it is the insurance company which is liable to indemnify the owner/insured. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether accident occurred on 1.2.07 at Daudla Morh, village Sunetar tehsil Ramnagar due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 while driving matador No.JK14A/6272 resulting in the death of Parveen Kumar and injury to Ratnu alongwith others? OPP

In case Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, how much amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP

Whether the erring driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and was driving the vehicle in violation of the provisions of M V Act and as such insurance Co. is not liable to indemnify the insurer? OPR-1

Relief.”

The evidence has been led by the parties. The petitioners have examined a number of witnesses, but the injured petitioner/appellant herein has not deposed anything in support of the claim put forth by him. Therefore, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that since the petitioner has not deposed anything in support of his claim petition, though the offending vehicle and he too sustained injuries in the said accident, has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant herein.

Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has, vehemently, argued that the petitioner was travelling in the said offending vehicle and got injuries, who was also treated at the Sub Divisional Hospital, Ramnagar and thereafter he was referred on the same date of the accident to the District Hospital, Udhampur. It is submitted that despite admitting that the petitioner was injured because of the said accident, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition, which is against the mandate and the provisions of law. Rejection is contrary to the facts of the case and the law points. The learned Tribunal further failed to appreciate the statement of one Kala Ram, who deposed that in the accident in question the appellant has sustained injuries. In addition, it is further submitted that the medical certificate is sufficient evidence on record which shows that the Doctor has certified that the appellant has suffered injuries with 15% permanent disability, therefore, the Tribunal should not have dismissed the claim of the appellant on the ground that the appellant did not appear as a witness.

Learned counsel for the respondents resisted the appeal and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant because the appellant has failed to appear as a witness to record his statement for the last more than six years. Even in the memo of the appeal no reason has been given by the appellant for non appearance of the appellant before the Tribunal to record his statement.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The judgment referred by the appellant passed by the Karnataka High Court in M.F.A. No. 6227/2001 titled “Venkatesh vs. T.M. Rama” is not applicable in this case as the same is against the appellant. Para-3 of the aforesaid is reproduced as under:-

“xxxxx However, in case of grievous injuries where evidence with regard to consequential disabilities is to be established, in such cases, it could be insisted that the petitioner has to examine himself and cannot prove the case by examining any other person. In that view of the matter, whatever evidence let in by the petitioner is just and proper. xxxxx”

In the present case the claim petition has been filed on 19.07.2007 and decided on 20.07.2013, meaning thereby that during the pendency of six years the appellant/petitioner has not appeared before the Tribunal as a witness to record his statement. The appellant is the only person who can prove that how and in what circumstances he got injured.

Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, the impugned award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udhampur does not require any interference. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Record of the Tribunal be send down.