Back
2000 Supreme(MP) 274
V.K. Agarwal, J.
Rajesh Kumar
vs
Kunwar Singh And Anr.
Decided On: 27 March, 2000
The liability of the owner and driver in a motor accident, assessment of compensation, and modification of awarded amount based on the nature of injuries and disablement.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The court discussed the liability of the owner and driver of a vehicle involved in a motor accident, the assessment of compensation for medical expenditure and loss of earning, and the determination of non-pecuniary damages. The court also addressed the evidentiary burden on the appellant to prove non-ownership of the offending vehicle and the modification of the awarded amount based on the nature of the accident and injuries.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, an advocate, filed for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, due to injuries sustained in a motor accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the respondent. The respondent denied ownership of the offending vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by the respondent's rash and negligent driving and held the appellant as the owner of the offending vehicle. The court also assessed the compensation for medical expenditure, loss of earning, and non-pecuniary damages, modifying the awarded amount based on the nature of the injuries.
Issues: Ownership of the offending vehicle, liability of the owner and driver, assessment of compensation, and modification of awarded amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant's evasion regarding the ownership of the offending vehicle and failure to provide evidence led to the court's decision to hold the appellant liable. The court also considered the nature of the injuries and the absence of permanent disablement in modifying the awarded amount.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the awarded amount to Rs. 41,918 with interest, and directed both parties to bear the cost of the appeal.
V.K. Agarwal, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 13.9.1996, in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 35/91, by Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Multai, Betul, whereby an award of Rs. 46,918/- has been granted in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1.
2. It is now not in dispute that the claimant/respondent No. 1 is an Advocate. He was driving his motorcycle No. BTA 7332 from Amla to Multal, his motorcycle was dashed by another motorcycle No. ADG 4195, driven by respondent No. 2 Shiv Shankar.
3. The claimant/appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short), claiming compensation on account of the said accident. He averred that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by respondent No. 2. It was also averred that the said motorcycle was owned by the appellant. He suffered fractures and had to undergo treatment for about three months, resulting in loss of earning, mental pain and sufferings and loss of future prospects. The respondent No. 2 did not appear to contest the said application. The appellant filed his reply. In his reply, he did not specifically deny that he is not the owner of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. ADG 4195.
4. Learned Tribunal after assessment of material and evidence on record concluded that the accident occurred on account of respondent No. 2 Shiv Shankar Thakur driving motorcycle ADG 4195 rashly and negligently. It was also held that the appellant is the owner of the said vehicle. It was further held that the respondent No. 1/claimant suffered fracture in his left leg. He had to incur expenditure of Rs. 6,918/- in his treatment. He suffered loss of earning of Rs. 15,000/-, towards non-pecuniary damages for mental and physical pain Rs. 25,000/- were awarded. Thus a total award of Rs. 46,918/- was granted in favour of claimant/respondent No. 1.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle and that the respondent No. 1/claimant failed to prove the above fact. Hence, liability to pay the amount of award could not have been fastened on the appellant. It was further contended that the amount of award is excessive, inasmuch as the claimant/respondent No. 1 did not suffer any permanent disablement, and that the amount of non-pecuniary damages as assessed and granted by the impugned award, is excessive.
6. As noticed earlier, the appellant did not specifically deny the allegation of the respondent No. 1-claimant that the offending vehicle ADG 4195 was owned by him. His denial to the specific averments of the claimant in para 8 of his application under Section 166 of the 'Act' is rather evasive and vague, inasmuch as he has stated in his reply that the above allegations of the claimant/respondent No. 1 were without basis. He did not aver that the motorcycle ADG 4195 did not belong to him. In his statement appellant Brajesh Kumar (NAW/1) in para 3 has admitted that he has obtained the said motorcycle on 'Supratnama' by filing an application to the effect that the motorcycle belonged to him. He further states that he did not care to verify as to whom the said motorcycle belonged.
7. Obviously in view of the above statement it is clear that the appellant has persisted in his evasion regarding the ownership of the offending motorcycle. The registration certificate of the motorcycle was not got produced by him, nor he examined any official of the Regional Transport Officer in support of his contention that the offending vehicle did not belong to him. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the evidence and testimony of the claimant/respondent No. 1 that the offending vehicle was in the ownership of the appellant Brajesh Kumar. It is also clear from the statement of claimant/respondent No. 1 that the accident occurred on accident of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle belonging to the appellant by its driver Shi
