Back
1989 Supreme(HP) 172
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
BHAWANI SINGH
GURCHARAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR UNA - Respondent
F. A O. No. 106 of 1989
Decided On : 11/23/1989
For the appellant :Shri Prikshit Mehdudia vice Shri K. D. food, Advocates. For the respondent(s):Shri M. S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Shri A. K. Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
The driver of a motor vehicle is liable for injuries caused to others due to his rash and negligent driving.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - INJURY - ASSESSMENT - LIABILITY - RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING - EVIDENCE - WITNESSES - POLICE INVOLVEMENT - PRESSURE ON CLAIMANT - COMPENSATION AWARDED.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, a pillion rider, was injured when the scooter he was riding was hit by a car driven by the respondent. The claimant sustained a fractured ankle and permanent disability to the extent of 10%. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, holding that the claimant was not knocked down by the offending vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the evidence on record established that the car driven by the respondent was involved in the accident and that the respondent was rash and negligent in his driving. The Court also found that the police had attempted to suppress the involvement of the car and the respondent in the accident.
Issues: 1. Whether the claimant was knocked down by the offending vehicle? 2. Whether the knocking down of the claimant was due to rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the car? 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the claimant had proved that he was knocked down by the offending vehicle and that the respondent was rash and negligent in his driving. The Court also held that the police had attempted to suppress the involvement of the car and the respondent in the accident. The Court awarded the claimant compensation for personal injury, medical expenses, pain and suffering, transportation charges, and loss of earnings during the period of treatment.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the award of the Tribunal was set aside, and the claimant was awarded compensation of Rs. 41,046.65 paise with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition.
Bhawani Singh, J.—This appeal by the claimant, Gurcharan Singh, assails the award in M. A. C. Petition No 8 of 1988, decided on 3-6-1989, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, thereby dismissing the claim preferred by the claimant, claiming compensation from the respondents to the extent of Rs. l>00,000 for the personal injuries sustained by him.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 6-9-1987, the claimant, a pillion rider with his friend Amar Singh, was going on scooter No. PUN 792 at about 11-30 p. m. after seeing the circus show near the Bus-Stand, Una. As soon as they reached near the chowk of new bus stand, Car No. HIU 1000, driven by respondent No. 3, and owned by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, came from behind and hit the scooter with the result that the scooterists fell down alongwith the scooter and sustained injuries. In the case of Amar Singh, the injuries were quite simple and he did not advance any claim for compensation whereas the claimant in the present case sustained injury to the left ankle which got fractured. Two persons, eye-witnesses, namely, Chhotu alias Santosh and Hari, carried the claimant and his friend to the district hospital and were admitted there. The claimant remained admitted in the hospital upto 30-9-1987 and thereafter he visited the hospital again on 27-10 1987 since the injury had not healed by that time, the hospital authorities there, referred the claimant to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh (PG1). The injury resulted in permanent disability and affected the earning capacity of the petitioner to the extent of 10%. The petitioner further states that he had started the job of welding after getting a loan from a nationalised bank under the, unemployed scheme but due to the injury, he could not follow the said vocation. His age, at the time of the accident, was about 25 years and his monthly income has been stated to be Rs. 2,000.
3. The respondents have repudiated the claim and they have alleged that car No. HIU 1000 was not involved in the accident. It is stated that the scooter driver, after overtaking the car, failed to keep the balance of the same and the result was that it dashed into an electric pole embedded on the side of the road.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: "1. Whether the petitioner had been knocked down by Car No. HIU 1000 on 6-9-1987 at 11.30 p m. near bus stand, Una, as alleged? OPP.
2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the knocking down of the petitioner was due to some rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the said car i. e. respondent No. 3? OPP.
3. If both the above issues are proved whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, the quantum thereof? OPP.
4. Relief."
5. The trial ended in the dismissal of the claim petition since the Tribunal held that the claimant was not knocked down by car No. HIU 1000. Having come to this finding on issue No. 1, decision on other issues became redundent, the Tribunal held.
6. The claimant has a grievance against the findings of the Tribunal on this issue and the award has, thus, been challenged by way of this appeal.
7. Shri Prikshit Mehdudia, appearing vice Shri K. D. Sood, submits that the findings of the Tribunal deserve to be set-aside since there is sufficient evidence not only to connect the offending vehicle with the accident but also to indicate that the act of respondent No. 3 was rash and negligent, thus, entailing responsibility for the award of compensation. Reference to the evidence on record has also been made.
8. Statement of the claimant (PW 1) is that he was returning home from the bus stand after watching the circus show and when they reached near the chowk, they found a car following them. It hit them and it was being driven by respondent No. 3. The number of the car was HIU 1000. As a result of the accident, they fell on the spot and were taken to the hospital by one Hari and Chhotu in a three wheeler. As a re
