Uttarakhand Transport Corporation vs Preetam Singh & Another

Lok Pal Singh, J

This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 20.01.2014, passed by M.A.C.T./4th Addl. District Judge, Dehradun in M.A.C.P. No. 341 of 2005, "Preetam Singh Vs. Uttaranchal Roadways Transport Corporation and another.", whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant has been allowed against the appellant-Uttarakhand Transport Corporation for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith simple interest @8% from the date of filing the claim petitioner till the date of its realization.

Factual matrix of the case is that on 15.05.2005, the claimant/injured was travelling in Bus No. U.A. 07-J-1193 from Haridwar to Ramnagar. In the way the Bus collided with the standing Truck No. H.R. 29-B-7342 due to rash and negligence driving on the part of its driver, the appellant along with other passengers of Bus sustained injuries on his both legs. The appellant was taken to Afzalgarh Government Hospital, thereafter he was taken to Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust, Jolly Grant, Dehradun for further treatment. The claimant sustained 50% disability. It is contended that the appellant-claimant spent about Rs. 2 lacs on his treatment. The appellant filed claim petition against the Uttaranchal Roadways Transport Corporation and the driver of the offending Bus.

The opposite parties contested the claim petition and filed their written statement. In their written statement, the appellant admitted the accident by the Bus and it was also admitted that the claimant was travelling in Bus No. U.A. 07-J-1193, at the time of accident. They stated that the accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

Tribunal framed issues in the claim petition. Thereafter parties adduced evidence in support of their cases.

It is contended that initially a claim petition being MACT Case No. 341 of 2005 was filed by the claimant (respondent herein) before the Additional District Judge/1st F.T.C./M.A.C.T., Dehradun. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of entire evidence, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award and recorded the finding that the claimant could not prove this fact that he has sustained injuries on his both legs in the accident and he suffered disability in said accident and dismissed the claim petition vide order dated 10.09.2010.

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2010, the claimant/respondent preferred A.O. No. 458 of 2010 "Pritam Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Roadways Transport Corporation though Regional Manager". Alongwith the aforesaid appeal, the appellant (respondent herein) has also moved application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for taking additional evidence on record and also annexed relevant documents in support of his case.

The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.08.2011 having considered the material available on record remanded the matter back to the tribunal concerned. The operative portion of the said judgment is extracted below:

"Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.2010 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to MACT concerned for deciding the claim petition afresh, after affording opportunity to parties to adduce evidence as well as considering the documents filed by the claimant/appellant in appeal."

The respondent adduced the documentary evidence and got examined himself before the MACT concerned. The Tribunal concerned having considered the fact that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, has recorded finding in favour of the claimant/respondent that appellant sustained injuries due to said accident and got 50% disability on his left leg. The tribunal vide order dated 20.01.2014 awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with simple interest @8% to the claimant-respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal.

Learned counsel for appellant would submit that the accident in question had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. He would further submit that the claimant-respondent no.1 could not prove that he was travelling in the Bus as the other passenger who got injured were admitted to Primary Health Central from where they were discharged. He would further submit that claimant-respondent no.1 sustained injury in the accident as he was travelling in the appellant's Bus. He would further submit that as the claimant is teaching in a Government School, so, there is no financial loss to him. He would further submit that compensation has been awarded to the claimant on higher side. He would further submit that the compensation of Rs. 2 lacs towards the loss of future promotion has illegally been awarded to the respondent-claimant by the Tribunal. He would further submit that the tribunal has not considered the witnesses produced by the appellant and has wrongly held that in the accident the claimant got injured. It is contended that appellant-corporation is not responsible for payment of any compensation to the claimant-respondent no.1.

On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the claimant-respondent no.1 would submit that at initial stage of proceedings, the claimant could not file the documentary evidence to the effect that he sustained injury in the accident and was admitted in Afzalgarh Government Hospital as well as Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust, Jolly Grant, Dehradun. It is submitted that after passing the order of remand by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the evidence has been filed by the claimant-respondent no.1, which proved that the claimant was travelling in the Bus. He would further submit that the respondent has spent about Rs. 2 lacs in getting the treatment of his left leg, but he could not prove the same on the bills and bills of Rs. 1,80,000/- only been proved. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent no.1 would further urged that before the alleged accident, the claimant-respondent no.1 is working in State Level College but due to the 50% disability sustained by him in the accident, he has been transferred/attached to District Level School and loss of further prospect to his life such as getting promotion and to continue in the State Level Institutions.

The claimant- respondent no.1 proved his case that the Bus was driven by appellant's driver Jagdish Lal rashly and negligently due to which the claimant-respondent no.1 sustained injuries. The tribunal has recorded categorical finding on all the issue framed by it. The tribunal recorded the findings that the claimant- respondent no.1 has sustained injuries on his left leg in the accident and due to which claimant-respondent no.1 suffered disability. The claimant has proved the medical bills to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- incurred by him due to the injuries suffered by him on his legs. The claim of the claimants appears to be genuine. The strict provisions of Evidence Act does not apply to the claim petition. The preponderance of the evidence is to be seen by the Court. Since, the claimant has proved the expenditure incurred by him during his treatment by way of filing medical bills of more than Rs. 1,80,000/- but some of the medical bills could not be proved and further the bills of travelling expenses etc. are on record, but the same also not proved. As such, the award of Rs. 5,00,000/- awarded to the claimants could not be said to be exorbitant or without their being any evidence. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant-respondent no.1 .

In view of the above, the claimant-respondent no.1 was held entitled to the aforesaid award minus the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- already released in his favour. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. Interim order dated 10.04.2014 is hereby vacated. No order as to costs.