Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1573
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh
FAO No.647 of 2001 (O&M) and X-OBJ-21-CII-2002
Pritpal Singh
v.
Rajwinder Singh & Anr.
{Decided on 02/05/2019}
Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Accident--Negligence--Even if there is overloading on the two wheeler, it does not give a licence to the four wheeler to hit the said two wheeler from the behind and then claim contributory negligence Accident--Medical Expenses--Certificate issued by physiotherapist not to be discarded
Headnote:
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Negligence--Even if there is overloading on the two wheeler, it does not give a licence to the four wheeler to hit the said two wheeler from the behind and then claim contributory negligence--Plea of contributory negligence set aside--Driver of four wheeler held to be solely responsible. (Para 12)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Negligence--Four persons were riding on two wheeler--Two adults and two children--Four wheeler came from behind and hit the scooter--Nothing on record to show that the scooter lost the balance, which contributed to the accident--Plea of contributory negligence by driver of four wheeler set aside. (Para 11)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Medical Expenses--Certificate issued by physiotherapist not to be discarded--Held; Physiotherapists have their private practice and do not issued the bills as issued by the regular hospitals--However, it cannot be said physiotherapy was not done and bills are fake. (Para 17)
JUDGMENT
Mr. Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral):- This judgment will dispose of FAO No.647-2001 and Cross Objections No.21-CII-2002.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 3.10.1998, at about 6.15 PM, claimant Rajwinder Singh was driving scooter bearing Registration Number PB-01-L-6296. His wife, daughter and brother’s son were also riding the same scooter. When they reached near Ice Factory on Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar, a Maruti Van bearing Registration Number PB-02-F-9666 being driven by Lakha Singh – respondent no.2 came rashly and negligently and hit the scooter from the back side. As a result of accident, claimant and occupants fell down. Claimant received head injuries and became unconscious at the spot. Respondent no.2 fled away from the spot along with his Maruti Van. According to the claimant, he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 75% in the right and left eyes. Claimant claimed that he spent Rs.1,50,000/- on his treatment. He was working in the Home guard Department as Instructor and drawing salary of Rs.6000/- per month. He was 40 years of age at the time of accident. He claimed Rs.Six lakhs as compensation. The vehicle was found to be uninsured. Respondent no.1 owner and respondent no.2 driver were impleaded as respondents. Respondent no.2 did not appear, whereas respondent no.1 appeared and stated that he had already sold the vehicle to one Satnam Singh. The claim petition is bad for non-joining of Satnam Singh. He also denied the accident and claim set up by the claimant.
3. From the pleadings, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident, which took place on 3.10.1998 on Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar on account of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van bearing Registration No.PB-02-F- 9666 by respondent no.2?OPA
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation. If so, how much and from which of the respondents? OPA
3. Whether the petitio;n is liable to be dismissed on account of non-impleading of necessary parties? OPR
4. Relief
4. The Tribunal discarded the bills Ex.A40 and Ex.A41 issued by Rishi Ram, Physiotherapist. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs.90,000/- on account of bills for his treatment. Another sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation was allowed for injury on the head and total compensation to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- was allowed with interest @ 9% per annum. If the awarded amount is not deposited within two months, 12% per annum interest was payable.
5. Against the said award, the owner has come up in appeal before this Court stating that he is not liable to pay the compensation and the compensation granted is excessive. The claimant has filed Cross Objections, claiming enhancement in compensation.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the original record and file.
7. First of all, I will take up the appeal of the owner.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant states that there were four persons on the scooter and it is a case of contributory negligence. The second plea is that 12% per annum interest granted by the Tribunal is excessive. Regarding contributory negligence, it has to be noted in the claim petition itself that the claimant was driving the scooter and his wife was riding the pillion. Daughter of the claimant and brother’s son were also riding with the pillion. Meaning thereby, two children were also riding the pillion. Daughter is stated to be 10 years of age and age of the brother’s son has not come on record and presumably, he was also in the same age group as the daughter of the claimant.
9. It is contended that the scooter is meant for two persons and when four persons are riding, it is likely to lose the balance. Therefore, there is contributory negligence. For this purpose, reliance has been placed on the authority of Single Bench of this Court in Angrejo Devi and others vs. Jai Parkash and others, [2014(6) Law Herald (P&H) 5314] : 2013(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 161. Perusal
