Court No. - 30
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1552 of 2018 Appellant :- Om Ji Gupta Respondent :- Basudev Hardasani And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun,Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Present appeal has been filed challenging the award dated 22.12.2017 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 1036 of 2014.
Present appeal has been filed filed by the owner of the vehicle.
As per the allegations in the claim petition the accident had taken place on 17.4.2014 at about 8:30 am when the claimant was going by his Scooty being number UP-78 CA 7365 in front of Mangalam Market on the main road he was dashed behind by I-10 Car No. UP-78 BY 8124, which was driven rashly and negligently. The claimant suffered serious injuries and suffered fracture in his right leg. He was hospitalized from 17.3.2014 to 5.4.2014 in Mariyampur Hospital, where two operations were conducted and iron rod was fixed in his leg. The claimant had also filed disability certificate indicating 50% disability suffered by him. It was further stated that his annual income is Rs. 2,50,000/- from business of readymade garments and he is income tax payee. Claim for Rs. 30,40,000/- with 10% interest was filed by the claimant. The written statement was also filed by the appellant on the ground that no accident had taken place from the vehicle and a false first information report was filed and the vehicle was wrongly seized by the police. It was further stated in the written statement that at the time of accident Sri Arun Kumar Gupta was driving the vehicle, who was having valid driving license to drive the vehicle. The claimant examined as PW-1 and one Jitendra was examined as PW-2.
In support of his case various documents including the first information report, charge-sheet, site plan, disability certificate, discharge summary, pan card, income tax return for the year 2011-12, 2013-14, driving license of the claimant and technical report being paper no. 46-Ga/2 of the car and technical report being paper no. 46-Ga/4 and the bail order of Arun Kumar Gupta was filed.
The owner in his support, apart from other documents, filed the driving license of Arun Kumar Gupta and the registration certificate. Arun Kumar Gupta was examined as DW-1 and one Vipin was examined as DW-3.
Two issues were framed by the learned Tribunal; one was relating to the factum of accident and other relates to the quantum of punishment.
On issue no. 1 the defence of the owner that no accident had taken place from the Car in question was exhaustively considered and it was noticed that Arun Kumar Gupta DW-1 had stated that he usually drives the car but on 17.3.2014 he had gone out of town (to Lucknow) and when he came back he found that the vehicle had been taken away by the police on the ground that the vehicle was involved in some accident. This statement was disbelieved by the Tribunal on the ground that immediate action was taken on the information of the accident. It was also noticed that DW-1 has never raised grievance of false implication of his vehicle and he has obtained bail from the court concerned and the case is still going on. The other defence witness had also denied the accident. The claimant witnesses including the injured claimant categorically stated about the happening of the accident and from the documentary and oral statement of the contesting respondents the court below considered the site plan, which clearly indicated that both the vehicles were going in the same direction and the car had dashed the Scooty. More importantly, the technical report of the Scooty as well as Car were considered, according to which the Car suffered damage on front show and right indicator and Scooty has suffered damages on the rear right side shocker and right light. In such view of the matter, it was found that the oral statement of the claimant witnesses were supported by these documentary evidences.
Insofar as the statement of Arun Kumar Gupta that he was not in town and had gone to Lucknow is concerned, in paragraph 10 of the written statement it has been stated that the vehicle was not involved in the accident, however, in paragraph 12 of the written statement it has been stated that at the time of accident Arun Kumar Gupta was driving the vehicle. The stand so taken in the written statement itself are contradictory in nature and thus, it is very much clear that the findings so arrived at by the learned Tribunal on the basis of appreciation of oral and documentary evidence is not perverse in any manner.
A vague attempt was made on the quantum of amount awarded.
A perusal of the finding recorded on issue no. 2, I find that the total compensation is Rs. 1,57,635/- has been awarded out of which a sum of Rs. 1,28,633/- the bills, which were duly verified and the claimant was found to be entitled towards medical expenses.
Under such circumstances, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned award. Present appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
The amount deposited before this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall be transmitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the registry of this Court and the same shall be adjusted towards deposit to be made under the award.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Lalit Shukla