Shahjad vs Virendra Singh and Others

Bhawani Singh, C.J.—This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Badwani in Claim Case No. 102 of 1993 dated 30th Tune. 1994.

Accident took place on 23rd January, 1990 at about 12.00 a.m. when Truck No. MKN 4625 was carrying swings (Jhulas) for a fair/At one stage, tree branches hit the claimant who was occupying place on the top of the cabin of driver. He was taken to the hospital and his eye bandaged. Thereafter he went to different doctors for treatment. The result of accident has been that he has lost eye-sight to a great extent. He claimed compensation of Rs. 1,63,000/- alleging that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver, therefore, driver and the owner of the vehicle were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and since the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the compensation is payable by it. Taking place of accident has been denied by the owner and the driver of the vehicle. Similar is the case of Insurance Company. Ultimately, on the pleadings of parties, the Claims Tribunal framed as many as six issues. Except finding on Issue Nos. 4 and 5, all other findings have gone against the claimant, therefore, claim petition has been dismissed.

The Claims Tribunal appears to have come to the conclusion that the claimant has not been able to establish that he was conductor/cleaner with the vehicle and the accident took place as alleged, resulting in injury to the claimant. Further, claimant did not report the matter to the police nor he examined the doctors. In substance, the case set up by the claimant has been rejected by the Claims Tribunal. Through this appeal, the findings have been assailed by the appellant. Counsel for respondents heard and matter examined particularly the evidence in the case. From perusal thereof, it is evident from the statement of the claimant that he was working as cleaner with the truck and was receiving Rs. 600/- per month. He received injury to the eye while the truck was moving through the. road where branches of tres hit him. He was taken to hospital and the eye bandaged. Thereafter, he goes to number of doctors for treatment. It is not necessary that he should have examined those doctors, may be beyond his capacity to bear their expenses, but one doctor RW. 3 Dr. B.M Patidar has been examined in this case who says that injury is to the eye. It may be true that he has not specified the extent of disability but for that reason, it Cannot be said that the claimant has not suffered eye-injury in the accident and his eye-sight is not, affected. He has been subjected to cross-examination by respondents but nothing substantial favouring them has come out. Simply because report has not been lodged with the police, it cannot be said that the claim has no substance or the claimant could not be believed. Of course, the claimant has said that information to the police was sent in consultation with Mr. Umar Khan, Advocate before filing the claim case. There is nothing wrong in consulting the Lawyer before taking steps in the matter. This fact should not have weighed with the Claims Tribunal against the claimant. Claimant is further supported by Nanhu, an independent witness in the case. Further, respondents'' suggestion to the claimant during cross;-examination has been that he occupied the truck against consent of driver, which means occupation/travelling of claimant by truck is there. When this is so, why claimant should be disbelieved as to his employment in the truck as cleaner and suffering of the injury due to reckless and negligent driving of the vehicle. Findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal are, therefore, untenable and set aside.

Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, we examine the question of compensation. Claimant suffered injury to the eye which is an important part of the body. He seems to have lost eye-sight permanently. In any case, there is serious damage to the eye-sight. In the absence of statement by doctor as to the extent of disability but looking to the fact that claimant must have suffered great pain during the treatment and he is not in a position to treat it effectively for lack of funds, it would be in the interest of justice to award him lump-sum compensation of Rs. 80,000/-.

Consequently, appeal is allowed. Claimant is awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) payable with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date of application till payment.

Costs on parties.