United India Insurance Company Limited @APPELLANT@Hash Sahjad Ali

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 4/5/2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangah (‘the

Tribunal’), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,20,223/- as compensation along with interest @ 9%p.a. from the date of application

i.e. 17/9/2014.

The application for compensation was filed by claimantsparents of one Altaf with the averments that on 10/11/2012 Altaf, Gaurav and Amit Kumar

were travelling in a car no. RJ-31-CA3389 from Gaziabad to Hanumangarh. The car was being driven by Amit Kumar; when the car reached

towards Sirsa at about 10.30 pm on account of reflection of headlight of the incoming vehicles, the driver of the car was blinded and collided with the

tractor trolley which was standing on the road without any reflectors and indicator, resulting in grievous injuries to Altaf, Amit and Gaurav, and on

account of head injury to Altaf he was admitted to Govt. hospital, Sirsa and from there he was taken to Bikaner where during treatment he died on

16/11/2012. Based on the said averments, compensation was sought.

Reply was filed by the driver and owner of the car contending that the car was being driven cautiously, however, as the tractor trolley was standing

in between the road, the accident occurred.

The owner & driver of the tractor trolley denied the averments and claimed that the tractor trolley was plying on its own side and that there were

reflectors and that accident occurred on account of rash driving by the driver of the car.

Insurer of the tractor trolleyâ€"appellant denied the averments and claimed that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the

car and there was violation of policy condition by the owner of the insured tractor.

The insurer of the car contended that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the tractor and there was violation of policy condition.

The Tribunal framed five issues. On behalf of the claimants two witnesses were examined and 18 documents were exhibited, on behalf of

respondent three witnesses were examined. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of

tractor trolley, which was parked on the middle of the road without indicators or reflectors, which resulted in the accident. Whereafter, objections

raised by the appellant Insurer regarding violation of policy condition were negated. On account of findings regarding negligence of driver of the

tractor, the owner and the insurer of the tractor were held liable for payment of compensation. The compensation was assessed at Rs.6,20,223/-Â

which was awarded along with interest as noticed hereinbefore.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that from the material available on record, the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding

negligence of the tractor trolley is ex-facie incorrect. It was submitted that at the time of accident the tractor was plying on its correct side and it

was only on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the car that the same collided with the moving tractor trolley, which resulted in the

accident and, therefore, the tractor trolley which was plying ahead of the vehicle could not be held responsible for the accident and, therefore, the

award deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Reliance was placed on the judgment in Nishan Singh & Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. : 2018 ACJ 1466.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record as well as the

Mechanical Inspection Report of the car (Ex.11) produced by learned counsel for the appellant for perusal of the Court.

It was the specific case of the claimants that the tractor trolley in question was lying stationary on the road and on account of reflection of headlight of

the incoming vehicles, the driver of the car was blinded and collided with the stationary tractor trolley, which resulted in injuries to Altaf to which he

succumbed.

Prudent test for the plea raised by the Insurance Company and driver of the Tractor regarding the car in question colliding with the moving tractor

trolley would be to examine the status of the car post accident inasmuch as in case a car even if at excessive speed would have collided with the

moving tractor, the effect thereof on the car would not be as severe as in case of collision with a tractor trolley which was lying stationary on the

road. A perusal of the Mechanical Inspection Report of the car in question indicates that it was a case of total loss inasmuch as almost each and

every part of the car was damaged and bent including excel and frame of the car except the tyres. The said condition of the car as indicated in the

Mechanical Inspector Report clearly reflects the fact that the accident occurred on account of collision between the moving car and stationary tractor

trolley and, therefore, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant in this regard cannot be accepted.

So far as the judgment in the case of Nishan Singh (surpa) is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had come to the conclusion that the truck

involved therein was not driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the truck nor he had brought the truck in centre of the road by applying sudden

brakes, as being the cause of accident. Whereas, in the present case, it has been found as a fact that tractor trolley was lying stationary on the road

which resulted in the accident and, therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case.

The finding of the Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record in this regard cannot be faulted.

No other aspect was argued by learned counsel for the appellant.

In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.