Back
2006 Supreme(UK) 675
2007 UAD 240
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Rajeev Gupta, and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.C.S. Rawat
Appeal from Order No. 393 of 2005 with Appeal from Order No. 395 of 2005
KASHMIR SINGH – Claimant/Appellant
Versus
SANTOSH SINGH PATINER & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 30.11.2006
For the Appellant : Mr. M.S. Bisht, Learned Counsel
For the Respdt No. 2 : Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Learned Counsel
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 169 — Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal — Claims Tribunal to be termed as court subordinate to High Court — Tribunals had been constituted only to expedite motor accident claims and deals with tortuous liability arising from motor accident only — Well settled principle of law that while matters being decided by Tribunal, it is essential to take acceptable material facts in evidence — Such evidence must be direct or circumstantial to deduce necessary inference in proof of facts in issue — If there being no positive proved facts oral, documentary or circumstantial from which inference can be made, method of inference fails and what is left is mere speculation and conjecture — Therefore, when inference of proof that fact in dispute has been held established, there must be some material facts or circumstances on record from which such inference could be drawn. (Para 12)
(B) Evidence — Standard of proof — Not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt — Standard of proof cannot be put in straight jacket formula — No mathematical formula could be laid on degree of proof — Probative value could be gazed on facts and circumstances in given case — Strandard of proof is same both in civil cases and domestic enquiries. (Para 12)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 61 — Documents — Proving of— If documents produced have not been connected by any oral evidence, such documents cannot be said to be genuine and cannot be relied upon.
(Para 13)
(D) Motor Accident Claim Tribunal — Deciding of claim petitions — General principles of evidence which have been incorporated in Indian Evidence Act, to guide such Tribunal while deciding claim petitions — If principles of evidence were not made applicable in cases of motor accident claim, it would be very difficult for Tribunal to decide such petitions — However, technicalities of Evidence Act not to stand in way of Tribunal in giving appropriate relief to litigant. (Paras 13, 32)
(E) Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 74 — Public document — Document forming acts or records of public officer are public documents — Proving of — By producing certified copy of such document contents of such document or part thereof can be proved — Settled position that merely by proving handwriting of author of such document, veracity of statement made therein cannot be proved — Such author must depose before court in support of it and face cross-examination — Contents of such document without examining author are worst piece of hearsay evidence. (Paras 13, 24)
¼v½ eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk&169 & Dyse fVªC;wuy dh 'kfDr;ka o izfd;k & Dyse fVªC;wuy gkbZdksVZ ds v/khuLFk U;k;ky; gSa & fVªC;wuy dsoy eksVj nq?kZVuk nkoksa dk 'kh?kzrk ls fuiVkjk djus ds fy, xfBr dh xbZ gS rFkk dsoy eksVj nq?kZVuk ls mRié vidR;ksa ds nkf;Ro ls gh lEcfU/kr gS & fof/k dk fuf'pr fl)kUr gS fd tc ekeyk fVªC;wuy }kjk fu.khZr fd;k tk;s oks Lohdk;Z rkfRod rF;ksa dks lk{; esa fy;k tkuk pkfg;s & fcUnqxr rF;ksa dks fl) djus gsrq fu"d"kZ fudkyus ds fy;s ,slk lk{; izR;{k ;k ikfjfLFkfrd gksuk pkfg, & ;fn dksbZ ekSf[kd] vfHkfyf[kr ;k ikfjfLFkfrd fu'p;kRed fl) rF; miyC/k ugha gS ftuls fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk lds rks fu"d"kZ fudkyus dh jhfr vlQy gks tk;sxh rFkk dsoy ifjdYiuk o vuqeku jg tk;saxs & blfy;s tc lk{; dk fu"d"kZ fudkyuk gks fd fookfnr rF; LFkkfir gks pqds gSa rks vfHkys[kksa esa dqN ,sls rkfRod rF; ;k ifjfLFkfr;ka gksuh pkfg;s ftuls ,slk fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk ldsA ¼izLrj 12½
¼c½ lk{; & lk{; dk ekud & mfpr lUnsg ls ijs fl) ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg;s & lk{; ds ekud dks fdlh fuf'pr lw= esa ugha fijks;k tk ldrk & lk{; dh fMxzh ij dksbZ x.khrh; lw= ugha cuk;k tk ldrk & lEHkkfor egÙo fn;s x;s ekeys ds rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls ekik tk ldrk gS & lk{; dk ekud nhokuh ekeyksa rFkk ?kjsyw tkap nksuksa esa ,d leku gSA ¼izLrj 12½
¼l½ Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872] /kkjk&61 & nLrkost & fl) djuk & ;fn izLrqr nLrkost dks fdlh ekSf[kd lk{; ls lw=c) ugha fd;k x;k gS rks ,sls nLrkost dks 'kq) ugha dgk tk ldrk rFkk u gh ml ij fo'okl fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼izLrj 13½
¼n½ eksVj nq?kZVuk nkok U;k;kf/kdj.k & nkok ;kfpdkvksa dk fu.khZr djuk & nkok ;kfpdkvksa dks fu.khZr djrs le; ,sls U;k;kf/kdj.k dk Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e esa lekfo"V lk{; ds lkekU; fl)kUr fn'kk funsZ'ku djsaxs & ;fn lk{; ds fl)kUr eksVj nq?kZVuk nkos ds ekeyksa esa ykxw ugha fd;s tkrs rks U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fy;s ,slh ;kfpdk,a fu.khZr djuk vR;f/kd dfBu gks tkrk & fdUrq lk{; vf/kfu;e dh ckjhfd;ka okndrkZ dks mfpr vuqrks"k iznku djus esa U;k;kf/kdj.k ds dk;Z esa ck/kd ugha gksaxhA ¼izLrj 13] 32½
¼;½ Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872] /kkjk&74 & yksd nLrkost & yksd vf/kdkfj;ksa ds vfHkys[kksa ;k dk;ks± dks fu;fer djus okyk nLrkost yksd nLrkost gS & fl) djuk & ,sls nLrkost dh izekf.kr izfr izLrqr djds] ,sls nLrkost dh fo"k; oLrq ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx dks fl) fd;k tk ldrk gS & fuf'pr fof/k gS fd dsoy ,sls nLrkost ds jfp;rk dh gLrfyfi fl) djds mlds vUnj ds dFkuksa dh lR;rk fl) ugha dh tk ldrh & ,sls jfp;rk dks U;k;ky; ds le{k ,sls nLrkost ds leFkZu esa dFku djuk gksxk rFkk izfr ijh{kk nsuh gksxh & ,sls nLrkost dh fo"k; oLrq] fcuk jfp;rk dk ijh{k.k fd;s] lqus lquk;s lk{; dk lcls cqjk Hkkx gSA ¼izLrj 13] 24½
Per : Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J.
1. Since these Appeals are arising out of the same accident which occurred on 29.08.2004, such as, the appeals are being decided by the common judgment.
2. These appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the award dated 30.05.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/IInd F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar (hereinafter referred as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. Nos. 62/2004 (A.O. No. 393 of 2005) and 61/2004 (A.O. No. 395 of 2005) whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in M.A.C.P. No. 62 of 2004 (A.O. No. 393 of 2005) and Rs. 17,500/- in M.A.C.P. No. 61 of 2004 (A.O. No. 395 of 2005) respectively as compensation against the respondent No. 2-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants-Kashmir Singh and Sri Mohan Singh had filed a claim petition Nos. 62/2004 (A.O. No. 393 of 2005) and 61/2004 (A.O. No. 395 of 2005) respectively before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- each alleging therein that on 29.08.2004 when they were travelling in Tata Sumo bearing No. DL4CE 1488 from Rudrapur Court, an offending Tanker bearing No. HR 46/3055, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit the Tata Sumo near Panchakki. The claimants sustained serious injuries on account of accident. It was further alleged that they had made an expenditure of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each towards their medical treatment. Hence, the claim petitions had been preferred by the appellant-injured before the Tribunal.
4. The opposite parties filed their separate written statements and contested the case. The owner of the tanker-Santosh Singh /respondent No. 1 had alleged in his written statement that the accident did not occur by the offending tanker. It was further alleged that the offending tanker was having a valid permit and registration at the time of accident and it was insured with the Oriental Insurance company/respondent No.2 and thus the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
5. The opposite party No. 2 –Oriental Insurance Company alleged in the its written statement that the claimants had not impleaded the owner and the insurer of Tata Sumo. The accident occurred due to the negligence of Tata Sumo in which the injured were travelling. The owner and the insurer of Tata Sumo are liable to pay the compensation, if any. It was further alleged that the driver of the Tata Sumo was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It was further alleged that the offending tanker was being plied against the conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the claim petitions filed by the claimants are liable to be dismissed.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers of the vehicle, i.e., Tata Sumo and Tanker and the liability was distributed 50:50% on both the vehicles. The learned Tribunal further held that the claimants had filed the medical bills of Maharaja Agarsen Hospital, Rudrapur and Sai Hospital, Moradabad but these bills had not been proved in accordance with the law, as such, the compensation cannot be awarded without proper proof of the bills. It was further held by the learned Tribunal that the evidence of the claimants did not disclose how many injuries were sustained by them in the accident and even the claimants had not filed X-Ray plates for the perusal of the Tribunal from which it may be determined that how many fractures were found on the body of the injured. The Tribunal further held that the claimant- Kashmir Singh had filed the temporary disability certificate of 20%. The learned Tribunal assessed the Compensation of Rs. 40,000/- in M.A.C.P. No.62/2004(A.O. No. 393 of 2005) and 35,000/- in M.A.C.P. No. 61/2004(
