Back
2021 Supreme(HP) 185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Sahil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
HRTC and Another – Respondents
FAO No. 349 of 2019
Decided On : 13-05-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Mr. Arun Raj.
Point of Law: Motor Vehicle - Applicability of provisions of Civil Procedure Code is not to be applied to accident cases - It is settled legal position that strict principles of Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act are not applicable to enquiries to be made in claim petition. It is also settled that in claim case, evidence is to be evaluated on basis of principle of preponderance of probability.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Accident - Award - Challenged - Claim petition preferred by appellant has been dismissed - Claim petition for recovery of damages caused to his scooty by debris of wall, which collapsed with hit of bus being driven by respondent No. 2 at Bus Stand Hamirpur when it dashed with wall while respondent No. 2 was reversing it.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant has failed to establish on record actual quantum of expenditure incurred by him for repairing scooty. Therefore in absence of cogent and reliable evidence, it is not possible to determine quantum of damages suffered by appellant - In reference regarding damage probability caused to scooty and compromise arrived at between appellant and respondent No. 2 has been established on record. However, evidence to quantify the damage for which appellant is entitled has not been established by leading cogent and reliable evidence - Quantum of loss has not been proved by leading cogent, reliable and satisfactory evidence. At same, it is also a hard fact that because of false denial on part of respondents, appellant has been relegated to MACT as well as this Court and thus, appellant, deserves to be compensated, at least for that and therefore, respondents are held liable to pay Rs. 15,000/- in lump sum to appellant on this count. Accident had occurred during course of employment of respondent No. 1 while he was performing his official duty. Therefore, being employer respondent No. 1 Corporation is directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- to appellant on or before 15th June, 2021.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
1. In this appeal, challenge has been laid to award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter in short ‘MACT’) in MAC Petition No. 102 of 2017, titled as Sahil Kumar vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) and Another whereby claim petition preferred by appellant has been dismissed.
2. Appellant had preferred the claim petition for recovery of damages caused to his scooty by debris of wall, which collapsed with hit of bus being driven by respondent No. 2 on 30.3.2017 at Bus Stand Hamirpur when it dashed with wall while respondent No. 2 was reversing it.
3. It is the case of appellant that Bus Stand Hamirpur is adjacent to his house and is separated by brick wall over a retaining wall and on 30.3.2017 at about 8 AM his scooty was parked in his courtyard adjacent to retaining wall whereupon brick wall of Bus Stand was existing and at that time when respondent No. 2 was parking his bus towards petrol pump of HRTC located at Bus Stand Hamirpur, the bus had hit the wall and with its impact wall collapsed and debris had fallen on scooty of appellant.
4. According to appellant, incident was informed to Police Post, Hamirpur and Insurance Company. However, respondent No. 2, in the Police Post, situated at Bus Stand Hamirpur, had entered into a compromise and therefore, report with police was not recorded formally, rather a compromise deed was reduced into writing as Ext.PW-1/A, which was signed by respondent No. 2 and appellant and also by witnesses.
5. Defence of respondents is denial simplicitor. The occurrence as well as causing of damage to scooty and compromise in the matter by respondent No. 2 vide writing Ext.PW-1/A have been denied.
6. Appellant, including himself, has examined four witnesses, whereas, respondent No. 2 has examined himself as a defence witness.
7. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Syeda Najmunnissa and Others, 2011 ACJ 1222, referring judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case United India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Kamla Rani, 1997 ACJ 1081 (P&H), has reiterated that Motor Vehicles Act is not governed by Rules or procedure envisaged by the Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act and Tribunal is entitled to evolve its own procedure to meet the ends of justice based on principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
8. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in another pronouncement in case Sona and Others vs. Haryana Roadways, 1996 ACJ 421, has observed that Motor Vehicles Act is legislation which was enacted for the benefit of claimants and therefore, the rule of strict compliance of provisions of Civil Procedure Code is not to be applied to the accident cases.
9. It is settled legal position that strict principles of Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act are not applicable to the enquiries to be made in the claim petition. It is also settled that in claim case, evidence is to be evaluated on the basis of principle of preponderance of probability.
10. Appellant, in his examination-in-chief, has reiterated the incident and has stated that he intended to lodge report in Police Chowki, but, respondent No. 2 had entered into the compromise by stating that he would indemnify the loss caused to the scooty, whereupon, compromise deed Ext.PW-1/A was reduced into writing, which, apart from him, was signed by respondent No. 2 Ashok Kumar and witnesses Surender Kumar, Varun Kumar and Nilaksh Chopra. He has further stated that he got his scooty repaired from agency. To substantiate his claim, he had produced the bill Ext.PW-1/B on record to prove the expenditure incurred by him for repairing his scooty from the Agency. He has further stated that on refusal of Ashok Kumar to make the payment as agreed, he was constrained to file claim petition.
11 PW-2 Varun Kumar, whose signatures are on agreement and compromise deed Ext.PW-1/A, which he has admitted, has stated that he did not remember where the compromise was reduced in writing and he has refu
