Kanaiyal Lal v. Rajendra Singh Farsuwan

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant with a prayer to set aside the judgment and award dated 07-04-2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamoli (hereinafter will be referred to as the Tribunal) so far as it relates to the appellant for payment of Rs. 20000/- to respondent No. 1-Rajendra Singh Farsuwan along with 10% interest from the date of judgment till the date of its payment.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case-giving rise to the present appeal are that on the date of occurrence i. e. on 26. 6. 1995, the claimant was coming from Rudraprayag by Bus No. U. P. 06-1168. At about 2-15 pm driver of bus No. U. P. 05-0161 dashed the bus no. U. P. 06-1168 by driving it negligently and due to accident, he sustained grievous injuries and thereafter he was taken to Rudraprayag P. H. C and later on he was shifted to Dehradun for treatment and he was admitted in the military hospital. It was also stated that at the time of filing of the claim petition, the injured-Respondent No. 1 was under treatment. It was further pleaded that due to the injuries he was released from the service treating it the disability and he became permanently disable, therefore, compensation amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- was sought.

(3.) BOTH the owners of the bus as well as the Insurance Company filed their respective written statements. In the written statement filed by the owner, it was stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligence driving by the driver of the Bus and accordingly they shifted the liability on each other.

(4.) THE Opp. No. 4 - New India Assurance Company also filed its written statement and it was stated that it is the duty of the owner to show that driver of the vehicle was having valid licence and it was insured with the company and the company had no knowledge about the accident and the claim is also excessive.

(5.) THE Tribunal on the basis of the written statements/objections filed by both the parties framed as many as four issues which are as under: -1. Whether Rajendra Singh sustained grievous injuries involving fracture in the accident occurred on 26-6-1995 at 2. 15 P. M by the rash and negligence of the drivers of vehicle No. U. P. 05-161 and bus No. U. P. 06-1168 as alleged by petitioner? 2. Whether the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident had a valid licence at the time of accident and the vehicle had valid R. C. ? 3. Whether the vehicles involved in the accident were insured in National Insurance Company and New India Assurance Company as alleged by the owner? 4. What amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and which party is liable to pay. ?

(6.) AFTER dealing with all the issues, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation amount, which was directed to be paid by the O. P. No.-1 Rajendra Prasad and O. P. No. 3 Kanaiya Lal in equal shares. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in this appeal.

(7.) I have heard Sri N. S. Negi, leaned counsel for the appellant, Sri P. C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the Insurance company-respondent No. 4 and Sri Prabhat Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 1 was served sufficiently. Despite of service, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 was not served due to incorrect address and he is a formal party and he did not file any appeal. I have also perused the entire evidence available on record.

(8.) AFTER perusal of the evidence led by the claimant as well as by the respondent, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that Rajendra Singh sustained injuries due to contributory negligence of the drivers of the bus No. U. P. 05-0161 and bus No. U. P. 06-1168 which were owned by O. P. No. 1 and O. P. No. 3 respectively and both the drivers were not having valid license, fitness and R. C. Further, both the vehicles were not insured with New India Assurance Company and National Insurance Company respectively. Therefore, the Insurance Companies O. P. Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation and the liability to pay the compensation goes jointly on O. P. No. 1 Rajendra Prasad and O. P. No. 3 Kanaiya Lal (owner of both the vehicles involved in the accident) equally for the said accident.

(9.) THE quantum of the compensation was decided after perusal of the bills of the treatment and their relevant documents and the quantum was challenged by the claimant by filing objection in another appeal.

(10.) AS far as the validity of the driving licence and Insurance company is concerned, the appellant/owner of the bus no. U. P. 06 1168 and the subsequent owner of the bus no. U. P. 05-0161 could not produce the driving licence of the drivers before the Tribunal.

(11.) THE learned Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the drivers of the bus were not having valid driving licence and the owners of the buses also could not show that both the buses were insured at the time of accident and accordingly the Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000 in total.

(12.) THE appellant has challenged the present appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has committed an error of law in holding that the driver of Bus No. U. P. 05 161 was negligent in driving the bus and the bus was insured with the National Insurance Company and the driver was having valid driving licence and as such, the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation.

(13.) I have perused the award passed by Tribunal. The Tribunal while deciding the issue nos. 2 and 3 gave a categorical finding that injured Rajendra Singh sustained injuries due to contributory negligence of the drivers of the bus No. U. P. 05161 and bus No. U. P. 06-1168 owned by the respondent Nos. 1and 2 respectively and Sri Govind Singh respondent No. 2 was the driver of the said bus. Both the drivers had no valid licence and both the vehicles were also not insured with any of the insurance companies i. e. New India Assurance companies and National Insurance Company respectively. Therefore, the insurance companies i. e. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 could not be held liable to pay the amount of compensation jointly and the Tribunal has rightly shifted the liability of compensation upon O. P. No. 1 Rajendra Prasad and O. P No. 3 Kanaiya Lal (owners of both the vehicles involved in the accident) equally.

(14.) DURING the pendency of the appeal, the appellant did not file any policy or driving licence of the drivers, even though there was sufficient opportunity to file the documentary evidence in appeal, which could not be filed before the Tribunal as per the ground available to him under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C. P. C.

(15.) IN absence of any document as evidence, I am of the view that I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the award impugned. The impugned award does not suffer from any manifest error of law.

(16.) THE appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned award is upheld. No order as to costs.