Court No. - 25 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 201 of 1996 Appellant :- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. Through G.M.
Respondent :- Vineet Kumar Basanal & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Samir Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Pradeep Kumar,Cv. Pachauri,Swapnil Kumar
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
The case has been listed for final hearing/disposal. The list has been revised.
No one has appeared for the respondents. The counsel for the appellant is present.
The present First Appeal From Order has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1988') against the judgment and award dated 7.12.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IV Additional District Judge, Etah (hereinafter referred to as, 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 87 of 1993 (Vinit Kumar Bansal vs Chairman, Rajasthan, State Roadways Transport Corporation, Jaipur & Others).
The claimant-respondent no. 1 instituted Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 87 of 1993 wherein he impleaded the Chairman, Rajasthan, State Roadways Transport Corporation, Jaipur and the Depot Incharge, Jawahar Nagar, Depot of State Roadways Transport Corporation, Jaipur as opposite party nos. 1 and 2. The driver of the offending vehicle was impleaded as opposite party no. 3. The driver of the vehicle has been impleaded in the present appeal as respondent no. 2. In his petition, the claimant- respondent no. 1 alleged that he was travelling in his Maruti Car on 23.2.1993 when his car was hit by Bus No.
RJ-14-1869 seriously injuring the claimant-respondent no.
1. It was stated in the petition that the Maruti Car of the claimant-respondent no. 1 was, at the relevant time, being driven by Ram Khilari and the Munim of claimant- respondent no. 1 was also travelling with him in the said Maruti Car. It was stated in the petition that the aforesaid accident injuring the claimant-respondent no. 1 took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the opposite party no.3/respondent no. 2 and as a result of the aforesaid accident, the right leg of the claimant-respondent no. 1 was dislocated from his waist and the claimant- respondent no. 1 also received injuries in his stomach resulting in injuries to his spleen. The claimant-respondent no. 1 claimed compensation of Rs. 2,86,000/- from the opposite party against the medical expenses incurred by him, damage to his car, loss of income as well as for pain and suffering as a result of injuries caused due to the accident.
The opposite parties i.e. the appellant and respondent no. 3 filed their written statements denying the allegations made in the petition. In their written statements, the opposite parties denied that Bus No. RJ-14-1869 was involved in any accident on 23.2.1993. In their written statements, the opposite parties stated that the Maruti Car of the claimant had colluded with some other vehicle and the opposite parties were falsely implicated in the case. In his written statement, the opposite party no. 3, in addition to the aforesaid facts, also stated that at the time of alleged accident, the bus was being driven by the opposite party no. 3 in course of his employment with the appellants and, therefore, the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 were liable to pay compensation to the claimant-respondent no. 1 even if the allegations of the claimant regarding negligence and accident were found to be true. It is pertinent to note that in his written statement, the opposite party no. 3 also stated that he would not be able to recognize the claimant i.e. the respondent no. 1. The averment was made in support of the plea that the bus was not involved in the accident.
On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
"(1) Whether the accident took place on 23.2.1993 at about 11.30 a.m. in between Kadganj - Sikandra Rau Road near village Piwari by Rajasthan Roadways bus No. RJ-14/1869 and Car No. U.P. 25- 4757 in which the applicant was injured?
(2) Whether the driver of bus No. RJ-14-1869 was driving the bus rash and negligently?
(3) Whether the amount claimed is excessive if, yes to what amount, if any, is the petitioner entitled?
(4) Whether the petitioner was not injured in the alleged accident?
(5) Whether the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
(6) To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled?"
To prove his case, the claimant-respondent no. 1 appeared before the Tribunal as plaintiff witness no. 1 and produced the driver of his Car as plaintiff witness no. 2 and his Munim as plaintiff witness no. 3. The receipts of different expenses incurred by him as a consequence of the accident were also filed before the Tribunal. The opposite parties/appellant produced the opposite party no. 3, i.e. the respondent no. 2, as defendant witness no. 1 to prove their case.
In its judgment and award dated 7.12.1995, the Tribunal decided Issue Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of the claimant- respondent no. 1 and held that the claimant-respondent no. 1 was injured on 23.2.1993 in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. RJ-14-1869 by opposite party no. 3. While recording the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal relied on the evidence of different plaintiff witnesses, which according to the Tribunal were unimpeachable, and rejected the testimony of defendant witness no. 1 on the ground that there were major contradictions in the testimony of defendant witness no. 1.
While recording its findings on Issue Nos. 3 and 6, the Tribunal accepted the claim of claimant-respondent no. 1 regarding the medical expenses and expenses in getting his car repaired but rejected the claim of the claimant- respondent no. 1 for being compensated for the loss of business caused due to the accident. Consequently, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,45,000/- to the claimant-respondent no. 1 against a compensation of Rs.2,86,000/- prayed by the claimant-respondent no. 1.
The counsel for the appellant has argued that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue Nos. 1 and 3 are contrary to the evidence on record in as much as the accident as pleaded by the claimant-respondent no. 1 was disproved by the testimony of defendant witness no. 1 and the testimony of claimants' witness did not prove the accident as alleged by him. It was argued by the counsel for the appellant that in his testimony the defendant witness no. 1 had proved that the accident injuring the claimant was caused due to the negligence of the claimant and the Maruti Car of the claimant had colluded with the bus which was parked at the time of collusion and, therefore, the findings of the Tribunal on Issues Nos. 1 and 2 are contrary to the evidence on record. It was further argued by the counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded to the claimant-respondent no. 1 is on the higher side and the expenses allegedly incurred by the claimant were not proved by him before the Tribunal. It was argued that in view of the aforesaid, the judgment and award dated 7.12.1995 passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set-aside.
I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the appellant.
The negligence of the driver of the vehicle and consequently the accident as alleged by the claimant were proved by the witnesses of the claimant who were eye- witness of the incident. The counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any contradictions in the statements of different witnesses produced by the claimant. The counsel for the appellant has not brought to the notice of the Court any fact or document which could persuade the Court to hold that the witnesses were unreliable. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the testimony of the plaintiff witnesses were unimpeached and I do not find any error in the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal. The testimony of defendant witness no. 1 was unreliable as his testimony was contrary to the case taken up by the opposite parties in their written statement. In their written statement, the opposite parties had denied that Bus No. RJ- 14-1869 was involved in the accident and had stated that the Maruti Car of the claimant-respondent no. 1 had colluded with another vehicle and the opposite parties were being falsely implicated in the case. The DW-1 had testified before the Tribunal that the Maruti Car had colluded with Bus No. RJ-14-1869 which was parked on the road and the collusion was due to the negligence of the claimant who was, according to DW-1, driving the vehicle. The aforesaid statement of DW-1 was contrary to the pleadings of the opposite parties regarding the involvement of the bus in the accident and also contrary to the pleadings of opposite party no. 3 wherein he had specifically stated that he would not be able to recognize the claimant-respondent. In its impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal rightly held that the testimony of DW- 1 could not be relied upon to ascertain the facts. In view of the aforesaid, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to the effect that the claimant was injured on 23.2.1993 in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. RJ-14-1869 by opposite party no. 3 is based on evidence on record and requires no interference by this Court.
In the Tribunal, the claimant-respondent no. 1 produced the receipts of his medical bills showing medical expenses of Rs.50,000/- and also proved the said receipts. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- to the claimant for the said medical expenses. It is evident from the records, and it has not been denied by the appellant, that as a result of the accident and the consequential injuries caused to him, the claimant was confined to a nursing home for fifteen days. It also transpires that the claimant-respondent no. 1 was an income tax payee. It also transpires from the records that due to the injuries caused to him, the claimant was not able to look after his business for four months. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the claimant- respondent no. 1 for loss of earning calculated at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The claimant-respondent had also produced the bills of the concerned auto workshop to prove the expenses incurred by him in getting his car repaired which was damaged in the accident. The Tribunal relying on the aforesaid receipts awarded a compensation of Rs.65,000/- to the claimant-respondent. In addition to the aforesaid, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental pain and agony suffered by the claimant due to the accident and the injuries caused to him. The aforesaid findings are based on evidence on record and the compensation has been awarded to the claimant-respondent after considering the documentary evidence produced by the claimant-respondent. The counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that the documents which were relied upon by the Tribunal for awarding compensation under different heads were forged documents. I do not find any error in the findings of the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant- respondent no. 1 is also based on evidence on record and requires no interference by this Court in appeal.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Satyam