Back
2010 Supreme(UK) 247
2011 (2) UAD 301
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
B.S. Verma
A.O. No. 458 of 2008
DEEP KISHOR SINGH RANA @ DEEPAK SINGH RANA – Appellant
Versus
NAVEEN BADONI & TWO ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 04.05.2011
For the Appellant :Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 173 — Claim for Compensation — Enhancement of — Issue of facts cannot be decided in appeal in absence of evidences and findings of the learned Tribunal — In the present case, since the claimant has filed several medical bills which requires to be proved by evidence — And the learned tribunal had failed to consider the same — Accordingly, the impugned award liable to be set aside — A fit case to remand the matter to the learned Tribunal for decision afresh — Appeal, deserves to be allowed.
(Paras 15 and 16)
eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 173 & izfrdj c<+okus dh vihy & ekU; U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; vkSj lk{; ds vHkko esa vihy ds rF;ksa ds fcUnqvksa dks fuf.kZr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & izLrqr dsl esa pw¡fd nkosnkj }kjk vusdksa fpfdRlh; fcy nk;j fd;s x;s gSa tks lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fl) fd;s tkus visf{kr gSa ftUgsa laKku esa ysus esa ekU; U;k;kf/kdj.k vlQy jgk Fkk & rnuqlkj iz'uxr fu.kZ; fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS & ekU; U;k;kf/kdj.k dks u;s fljs ls fu.kZ; nsus gsrq okfil Hksts tkus ds fy, ;g fQV dsl gS & vihy Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA ¼izLrj 15 ,oa 16½
Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.: 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. 25,000/- 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 theein 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. To what
