FAO No. 270 of 2006. Case: Hem Chand Vs Sh. Dila Ram and Others. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Case Number | FAO No. 270 of 2006 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate and Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate |
| Judges | Rajiv Sharma, J. |
| Issue | Motor Vehicles Act |
| Judgement Date | June 20, 2013 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
Rajiv Sharma, J.
-
This FAO is directed against the award, dated 04.05.2006, rendered by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P., in case No. 36FT/2 of 2005. Key facts necessary for adjudication of this FAO are that the appellant aged 33 years has received multiple injuries in a vehicular accident on 19.07.2004 near Ambuja Chowk, Darlaghat. According to him, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HP-11-2203 by respondent No. 2, who was employed by respondent No. 1, as driver. The vehicle in question, i.e., truck No. HP-11-2203 was insured with respondent No. 3. The appellant has filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan, seeking compensation of ` 5,70,000/-. According to the appellant, he has suffered 100% disability and now he could not drive the vehicle.
-
All the respondents filed separate replies. The accident in question was not disputed. However, it was disputed that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck driver, i.e. respondent No. 2. They denied that the petitioner has suffered any disability. It is also denied that the petitioner has incurred a sum of ` 70,000/- towards his treatment. According to him, the accident has taken place due to the negligence of the appellant himself.
-
The issues were framed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P. has awarded a sum of ` 1,07,000/- by way of compensation to the appellant. Hence this appeal.
-
The claimant has led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. According to him, when he was driving truck No. HP-51-9722 at Ambuja Chowk, Darlaghat, a truck bearing No. HP-11-2203 was driven by respondent No. 2 negligently. The respondent No. 2 was driving the truck at a very high speed. He signaled the respondent No. 2 not to over take his vehicle. However, the respondent No. 2 over took the vehicle by ignoring the signal. Consequently, he received injuries on his right hand.
-
The respondent No. 2 has not appeared in the witness box. The statement of PW-1, Hem Chand, is supported by PW-2, Desh Raj. He has also led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. According to him, he was sitting in the same vehicle, i.e. truck driven by the appellant. He also stated that while the respondent No. 2 was trying to overtake the truck driven by the appellant, the appellant signaled the respondent No. 2 not to overtake, however, he did not care for the signal. Accordingly, the appellant received injuries.
-
The appellant has placed on record the disability certificate Ex. PZ. The disability of the appellant is permanent to the extent of 50%.
-
The loss of income of the appellant has been assessed at ` 500/- by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P. According to the appellant, he was earning ` 3550/- per month and ` 50/- by way of daily allowance. He is owner of a truck and has also employed a driver and is paying him ` 3000/- by way of salary and ` 50/- as daily expenses. By no stretch of imagination, the loss of income of the appellant could be less than 1500/-. He was employed as a driver. Now, he cannot drive the vehicle. Though the disability of the appellant has been assessed permanent to the extent of 50%, but taking into consideration his functional disability, the same would be 100%. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has to look into the functional disability by relating it to the profession/occupation of the injured. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come to the wrong conclusion that the appellant could be gainfully employed in any other profession with one hand. The respondents have not led any evidence that the appellant was gainfully employed and that even there is any likelihood of his employment. It is very difficult for a handicapped person to get a suitable job in the market. The appellant-injured has to be paid compensation for disability and also for the loss of future income.
-
Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 have held that the efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities. Their Lordships have held as under:
-
In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra) must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial