Back
2011 Supreme(UK) 264
2011 (2) UC 1245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
B.S.Verma, J.
Deep Kishor Singh Rana @ Deepak Singh Rana. -Appellant.
Versus
Naveen Badoni S/O Sri M.P.Badoni and two others. -Respondents.
A.O. No. 458 of 2008
Decided On: May 04, 2011.
Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. M.K.Goyal, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
The court emphasized the importance of proper proof for medical expenses in compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Section 173 - [MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, Section 173] - The court awarded compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173, after finding the driver guilty of rash and negligent driving, and upholding the validity of the vehicle's documents. However, the court set aside the award and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on the quantum of compensation due to errors in the Tribunal's handling of medical expenses bills.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident due to rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal awarded a lower compensation amount, citing lack of proper proof for medical expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the driver guilty of rash and negligent driving, upheld the validity of the vehicle's documents, and set aside the award due to errors in handling medical expenses bills, remanding the matter for a fresh decision on the quantum of compensation.
Issues: The issues included the cause of the accident, validity of the driver's license and vehicle documents, and the quantum of compensation due.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the findings on the cause of the accident and validity of the vehicle's documents but set aside the award due to errors in handling medical expenses bills.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the award, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on the quantum of compensation.
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) is directed against the judgment and award dated 4-10-2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Tehri Garhwal (for short the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 18 of 2006, Deep Kishore Singh Rana @ Deepak Singh Rana Vs. Naveen Badoni and others, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 25000/- to the appellant-claimant, as mentioned in the impugned award. The appellant-claimant has filed the appeal for enhancement of the compensation.
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the appellant-claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal alleging therein that on 13-2-2006, he was travelling by Mahindra Maxx Jeep No. UA 07H-1578 from place Bagi (Tehri) to his village Thela. At about 10.30 p.m. on Moolgarh-Tharti motor road near Mahargaon, within Patwari Circle Holta, Nailchami, Tehsil Ghansali, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle, the jeep rolled down into a deep gorge with the result the claimant suffered grievous injuries on different parts of his body and became unconscious. The claimant was brought to C.M.I. Hospital Dehradun and was admitted there for treatment. The claimant was kept in I.C.U. for eight days. According to the claimant, he had incurred huge amount on different counts as detailed in the claim petition. The claimant was also incapacitated to do his job of Project Coordinator in Vardan N.G.O. for a period of two years and suffered loss of income of Rs. 1,92,000/-. The claimant has filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs. 6,72,300/-, which included an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- incurred by the claimant towards medical expenses. It has been alleged that the illfated vehicle was owned by Mr. Navin Badoni and the same was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The illfated vehicle was being driven by driver Rajendra Singh Panwar.
3. The owner of the vehicle-O.P.No. 1 resisted the claim petition by filing his written statement asserting therein that he is the owner of the vehicle in question and the vehicle No. UA 07H-1578 was duly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company at the time of accident. It was also asserted that the vehicle was being driven by Rajendra Singh, who was having a valid driving licence and the accident occurred due to mechanical failure in the vehicle and that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver. The insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any. It was also asserted that the driver of the vehicle was not arrayed as opposite party. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
4. The O.P.No.2 Insurance Company also filed its written statement and has shown ignorance of the fact of accident. It was asserted that the claim preferred is exorbitant and without any basis. The driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence and the owner was not having valid papers of the vehicle and the vehicle was being plied in violation of policy conditions.
5. The driver of the vehicle was arrayed as O.P.No.3 by way of amendment, but has not contested the claim petition. The claim petition proceeded ex parte against him.
6. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues in the case:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the accident in question took place at about 10.30 p.m. on 13-2-2006 near Mahargaon on Moolgarh-Thati motor road Patwari Circle Holta Nailchami, Tahsil Ghansali of this district due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Maxx No. UA07H/1578 by its driver causing injuries to Sri Deep Kishore Singh Rana @ Deepak Singh Rana as alleged?
2. Whether on the date of alleged accident the driver of the vehicle in question was not duly licensed and the owner did not possess valid permit and fitness as alleged by O.P.No.2 the insurance company in para No. 8 and 10 respectively of its WS? In any case, its effect?
3.
