AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.—By this judgment I shall dispose of two F.A.O. Nos. 81 and 145 of 1971 which arise out of the same award of the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, dated February 17, 1971.
The facts giving rise to this litigation are that Dr. Om Parkash claimant was riding on his motor bicycle from Ambala City towards Model Town, Ambala on May 15, 1966. When he was on the road inter-section near Polytechnic he was hit by bus bearing No. PNE 9009 which was coming from Grand Trunk Road and was proceeding to the Bus Stand, Ambala. The bus belonged to the Tourist Co-operative Transport Society Ltd, Ambala City (hereinafter referred to as the Society) and was being driven by Mewa Singh driver, Respondent No. 1. It was insured with the Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd., The Mall, Ambala Cantt, (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The claimant filed a claim of Rs. 50,000/- against the Respondents on the ground that the accident took place on account of negligent and rash driving of Respondent No 1, who was driving the bus at a high speed. The claimant suffered a permanent deformity in his left leg as there is stiffness in his knee, on account of Which he has started limping. The Respondent denied the allegations of the claimant and contested the claim application. They, inter alia, pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself. It was he who struck his motor bicycle against the bus. The claimant while crossing the road intersection did not blow horn and entered the same at a very high speed. The claimant has not suffered any monetary loss. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence held that the accident took place on account of negligence of both the claimant and the driver in which the former was negligent to the extent of 25 per cent whereas the latter to the extent of 75 per cent, and the claimant suffered total damages to the extent of Rs. 29,000/-. The Tribunal consequently held that the claimant was entitled to an amount of Rs. 21,750/- and awarded him the said amount.
The Society and the Company filed on appeal against the said award bearing No. 81 of 1971. The claimant also filed an appeal against the award claiming an enhanced amount of compensation. The said appeal has been numbered as 145 of 1971. The first contention of Mr. Lalit Mohan Suri is that the claim in the beginning was filed for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Subsequently, the claimant made an application for amendment of the claim petition on December 2, 1967 and requested that he should be allowed to claim an amount of Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/. The application was allowed by the Tribunal on February 5, 1968. Mr. Suri submits that the amendment of the claim petition could not be allowed as the limitation for filing the claim petition had already expired. The question of limitation was not raised by the counsel for the company at the'' time of arguments before the Tribunal. Under Sub-section (8) of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), application for compensation could be filed within a period of 60 days. The Tribunal could, however, entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of 60 days, if it was satisfied that the Petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. The Tribunal had the power to condone the delay for making a claim petition as is clear from the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 110-A of the Act. Incase the objection would have been raised by the Company or the Society before the Tribunal, it. could extend the limitation for filing the application on the request of the claimant. It is in evidence that the claimant had not completely recovered when the claim petition was filed. He had to be operated again as late as December, 1968. It is also in evidence that he remained under continuous treatment even after the filing of the claim petition: Mr. Suri in support of his contention has placed reliance on a decision of this Court Dr. Maharaj Krishna Chopra and Anr. v. The State of Punjab 1969 A.C.J. 308 wherein an application was filed by the claimants for amendment of the claim petition by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 85,000/. That application was disallowed by the Tribunal. In appeal on behalf of the claimants it was urged that the order of the Tribunal in rejecting the application for amendment of the claim petition was not proper. The learned Judge held that the application was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. The facts of that case were peculiar and the observations of the learned Judge will not be applicable to the present case. He also placed reliance on a decision of the Patna High Court in Bihar Co-operative Motor Vehicles Ins. Society Ltd. v. Rameshwar Raut 1969 A.C.J. 405 therein the claimant was allowed to amend the petition by the Tribunal- subject to limitation. He had sought by way of amendment that the amount of compensation be enhanced from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. In appeal, an objection was raised that the claimant should not have been allowed to amend the petition as the application was belated. In that case, the petition was filed on September 30, 1959 claiming an amount of Rs. 6,000/ subsequently, he filed another petition on 27-8-1961 wherein he again claimed the same amount. The application for, enhancement of the claim was filed on May 18, 1963. It has not been stated in the judgment that the claimant was suffering at the time when the application for amendment of the claim petition was filed and the damages could not be ascertained till that date. The learned Division Bench held that in certain circumstances the Court or the Tribunal has the power to allow the amendment of the pleadings, but amendment should not be allowed if a valuable right has accrued in favour of the opposite party on account of the expiry of the period of limitation. - It is further observed that no amendment would be allowed to introduce a new set of ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any party by lapse of time. The facts of the aforesaid case are also distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The order passed by the Tribunal was that the amendment was allowed subject to limitation. In this case, as already stated, no objection regarding the limitation was urged before the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the ratio in the case aforesaid will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Another case cited by Mr. Suri is Pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Others, That was a case under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The proceedings in a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are summary proceedings. A short period of limitation for filing claims has been provided in the Act. la the circumstances, the observation of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case are not applicable to the present case. Mr. Maharaj Bakhsh Singh has placed reliance on Harsha Pai v. Dr. K.V. Karna 1973 A.C.J. 57 wherein it has been observed as follows:
It is contended by Mr. Sundara Swamy that the said claim had become time barred on 11th December, 1968, the date of the application, and that the Tribunal was in error in awarding the special damages claimed by way of amendment related to the expenses incurred by the applicant mostly subsequent to the date of the original application. The Limitation Act has no application to an application u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the period fixed for filing an application under that section is subject to its being extended in suitable cases at the discretion of the Tribunal if sufficient cause is shown. The discretion of the Tribunal in allowing the application for amendment, cannot therefore be interfered with.
In the present case, as stated above, the claimant suffered for a long time even after filing the claim petition and had to spend huge amount for his treatment. In my view, the discretion that was exercised by the Tribunal should not be interfered with in the present case.
The second contention of Mr. Suri is that the Appellants were not allowed to lead full evidence. He has not been able to substantiate the said allegation. He has not drawn my attention to any order by which his evidence was illegally closed. This contention, therefore, has no force and is rejected.
Mr. Suri next urges that the accident took place at the intersection of two roads. He further urges that it was the duty of the claimant that he should have proceeded through the intersection in case no other vehicle was coming from the opposite side. According to the counsel, in the circumstances it cannot be said that the negligence of the claimant was to the extent of 25 per cent only; rather it was to the extent of 80 per cent. On the other hand, Mr. Maharaj Fiakhsh Singh has submitted that there is evidence on the record that the claimant bad crossed major portion of the road and the left side of the bus struck against the rear wheel of the motor bicycle. In the circumstances, he submits, the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the bus and not that of the claimant. He also urges that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the claimant was negligent to the extent of 25 per cent. After hearing the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I find great force in the contention of Mr. Suri. Regulation 6 of Tenth Schedule of the Act, provides that the driver of a motor vehicle! shall slow down when approaching a road inter-section and shall not enter any such'' inter-section until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of the persons thereon. The aforesaid Regulation is as follows:
The driver of a motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road inter-section, a road junction or a road corner, and shall not enter any such inter-section or junction until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safely of persons there-on.
A duty is enjoined by the Regulation on the drivers of both the vehicles which are approaching an inter-section to see that the safety of the persons thereon is not endangered. In case the claimant would have been slightly cautious, he should have stopped his motor bicycle and allowed the bus to pass. Similar duty also lay on the driver of the bus. The learned Tribunal, while deciding this matter, has laid emphasis on the fact that the claimant had gone beyond the middle of the crossing towards the other side and therefore the driver of the bus was more negligent. It further observed that the driver of the bus must have noticed the claimant on his motor bicycle as he (claimant) had entered the crossing first. It does not take long for the vehicles to cross an inter-section even if they are running at a slow speed. In the circumstances of this case, I find that both the parties were equally negligent. I, therefore, hold that the claimant as well as the driver of the bus have contributed equally to the accident.
The last contention of Mr. Suri, is that the amount of compensation has not been assessed properly. He has referred to the receipts and submits that it appears that they were prepared on the same date. It is in the evidence of Dr. H.S. Kanwar, A W. 10 that there was a compound fracture in the left leg of the claimant. He found that both the bones and the upper end of the tibia of the left leg of the claimant protruded into the wound. He performed the operation, set the fractures and put him in plaster. He remained in the hospital upto June 9, 1966. Dr. S H. Manocha, Chief Medical Officer examined the claimant again on January 25, 1968 and found that there was partial union of the fracture in question which had resulted in disability and permanent deformity of the left leg. He was subsequently treated by Dr. H. D. Aggarwal, Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. He remained as an indoor patient in Rajindra Hospital from October 30, 1966 to November 18, 1966. The injuries suffered by him show that he must have employed a servant and a nurse to look after him. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the claimant that he obtained the receipts which have been placed by him on the file. Mr. Suri further urges that the amount assessed by the Tribunal is excessive. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the claimant states that the damages awarded to him are too low. I have gone through the evidence with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties. The appraisal of the evidence, in my view, is correct and he has properly assessed the amount of compensation. I did not find sufficient reasons for interfering with the findings of the Tribunal on the amount of compensation. This contention of the learned Counsel for the parties is rejected.
For the reasons recorded above, I partially accept F. A. Order 81 of 1971 and award an amount of Rs. 14,800/- as compensation to the claimant. F. A. O. No. 145 of 1971 is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.