Ashraf v. Rajesh Kumar and Another

FAO- 5083-2006 (O&M)        -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-5083-2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 03, 2024

Ashraf                 ......Appellant

Vs.

Rajesh Kumar and anr.         ......Respondent(s)

CORAM:   HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:  Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate and Mr. Manmohan, Advocate for respondent  No. 2– Insurance Company.

***

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1.    The  present  appeal  has  been  preferred  against  the  award  dated

03.08.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (for short, 'the Tribunal') for grant of compensation, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant was dismissed. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2.    The brief facts of the case are that on the intervening night of 23rd and 24th August, 2001, the claimant-Ashraj was proceeding towards village Cahalka from Village Islampur while driving Dumper No. HR-38C-3694. At about 4.00 a.m. when he reached near Puja Service Station, Sohna, then all of a sudden a Neel Gai  appeared  there.  The  claimant/appellant  tried  to  save  the  cow  and  took  his dumper on the left hand side of the road which struck with Neem tree. As a result

FAO- 5083-2006 (O&M)        -2-

of the accident, he sustained serious head injury. He sustained permanent disability and disfigurement due to this accident. In connection with this accident an entry was got made in Daily Dairy Register at Sr.No.20 on 24.8.2001 at Police Station Sohna. The Claimant-appellant spent an amount of Rs.80,000/- on his treatment, for  transportation  and  special  diet  etc.  The  claimant  was  taken  to  Pushpanjali Hospital, Gurgaon where he remained admitted from 24.8.2001 to 6.9.2001.

3.    Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied the factum of compensation.

4.    From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1.  Whether  the  accident  in  question  was  caused  by  the petitioner by use of dumper NO. HR-38-C-3694? OPP

2.  If issue No. 1 is proved whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP

3.  Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of of accident? OPR2.

4.  Whether  the  petition  is  bad  for  mis  jionder  and  non joinder of necessary parties? OPR 2

5.  Relief."

5.    After  taking  into  consideration  the  pleadings  and  the  evidence  on record,  the  learned  Tribunal  dismissed  the  claim  petition.  Hence  the claimant/appellant filed the present appeal for grant of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS

¶6The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contends that the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that in the claim petition, the monthly income of the appellant was stated to be Rs.4000/- per month. However, when the claimant appeared in witness box, he stated that his monthly income at the time of accident was Rs.3000/- per month. He further submits that the Tribunal has erred in law in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the appellant does not suffer permanent injury due to the alleged accident, therefore, the provision of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will not be applicable in the present case. Therefore, he prays that present appeal be allowed. <.     &er contra$ learned co nsel for the respondent$ howe+er$ +ehementl5 arg es that the claim petition had rightl5 been dismissed b5 learned Trib nal. .e pra5s for dismissing of appeal.

8.     * ha+e heard learned co nsel for the parties and per sed the whole record of this case. %.     The rele+ant portion of the award dated 03.08.2006 is reprod ced as nder:( "9. The present claim petition has been filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act to Claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act the claimant is not required to prove that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle or any other person. In order to claim compensation under section 163-A of the Act, the claimant is required to prove only that the vehicle was involved in the accident and due to that accident the claimant

FAO-5083-200

¶10and entry in on 24.8.200 mentioned t in his claim stated that t he was driv Gai, he turn Neem Tree. accident.

¶11injury on hi rebut the mentioned a No. HR-38C place and t body. Accor ISSUE NO.

¶12The pre M.V. Act. F below:- 163-A any o the fo

06 (O&M) Regarding this accident, matte n the Daily Diary Register was

¶01Copy of the DDR entry is Ex. that the accident took place as p m petition. Claimant appeared in the accident took place when he ing the offending vehicle at the ned his vehicle towards left side a PW3 stated that he sustained in There is evidence on the file is body. No evidence has been statement of PW3. Keeping above, I have no hesitation in ho C-3694 was involved in this ac that due to this accident claim rdingly, issue No. 1 is decided in . 2: esent claim petition has been file For proper appreciation, section A(i) Notwithstanding anything c ther law for the time being in f force of law, the owner of th

er was reported to the police made at Police Station Sohna .P1. In this document also it is per pleas taken by the claimant n the witness box as PW 3 and tried to save the Neel Gai and time of accident. To save Neel and the vehicle struck with the njuries on his body due to this e that the claimant sustained adduced by the respondent to in mind the circumstances olding that the dumper vehicle ccident and the accident took mant sustained injuries on his n favour of the claimant. ed under section 163-A of the n 163-A(i)& (ii) is reproduced ontained in this Act or in force or instrument having he motor vehicle or the

FAO-5083-200

author perma motor Sched

(ii) In claima death has b defaul any ot

claimant is disablement wrongful ac Section 163 this special disablement vehicle. It sustained m certificate h claimant. Th doctors in certificate E Gurgaon. In

06 (O&M) rized insurer shall be liable to p anent disablement due to acciden r vehicle, compensation, as i dule, to the legal heirs or the vict n any claim for compensation u ant shall not be required to pl or permanent disablement in r been made was due to any wr lt of the owner of the vehicle or ther person. Clause (ii) of section 163-A of t not required to plead or establis t in respect of which the claim ct or negligence or default of the 3-A(i) also make it clear that the provision can be granted only i t due to the accident arising is not a death case. The case multiple, serious and grievous has been obtained regarding he permanent disability certifica the Civil Hospital. The claim Ex.P11 issued by Dr. S. Sexa n this certificate it is mentioned t

pay in the case of death or nt arising out of the use of indicated in the Second tim, as the case may be. under Sub-section (i). the lead or establish that the respect of which the claim rongful act or neglect or r vehicles concerned or of the Act makes it clear that the sh that the death or permanent m has been made was due to e owner of vehicle concerned. e compensation amount under in case of death or permanent out of the use of the motor e of the claimant is that he s injuries on his body. No permanent disability by the ate is issued by a team of three ant based his claim upon a ana of Pushpanjali Hospital, that the claimant got treatment

FAO-5083-200

in Pushpanj this certifica hospital on upto the da the claiman claims that permanent i the spell of sustained 10

regarding p Rs.24.000/- Hospital an parts of the stated that p of the face o his head an were applie also placed photographs towards righ hair on the wounds or f

06 (O&M) jali Hospital and injuries on hi ate. It is mentioned that the claim

6.9.2001 and the recovery was u te of issuance of the certificate nt was upto 90%. On the basi there was 10% permanent disa is nowhere mentioned. It is ment f 18½ months was 90%. It is 0% disability or permanent disab Discharge card Ex.P10, fin payment Ex. P13 are also plac was paid as hospital bill by nd he sustained had injury and e body. Facing this situation lea permanent disability can be con of claimant also. Claimant stated nd there are scar mark on his h ed on his head at the time of oper d on the file which are not pro s also only scars of healed injuri ht side are shown. These healed e head of that part were remov for obtaining photographs of the

is head are also mentioned in mant was discharged from the uneventful. It is mentioned that on 1.10.2001 the recovery of is of this certificate claimant ability. In this certificate word tioned that the recovery within not mentioned that claimant bility. al Bill Ex.P12 and receipt ce on the file. The amount of the claimant in Pushpanjali d few minor injuries on other arned counsel for the claimant sidered due to dis-figurement d that he sustained injuries on head. Stitches in large number ration. Three photographs are operly proved. Even in these ies on the head of the claimant scars are visible only because ved for proper healing of the scars.

FAO-5083-200

¶15the head disfigureme In this rega wherein per permanent d head of the the board permanent d

¶16of permanen claimant is section 163-

¶17Section 163 deceased wa taken plea t basis, the an Rs.48,000/-. plea has bee it cannot be than Rs.400 witness box was Rs.300

06 (O&M) In my view on the basis of this of the claimant, findings c ent of the face or to assess it as a ard my attention was drawn o rmanent disfigurement of the h disablement. I fell, on the basis claimant, in the absence of any of doctors, it cannot be held disability. Now it is clear that neither it is nt disability. As such I have no not entitled to receive any am -A of the Motor Vehicle Act. Apart from it, compensation a 3-A of the Act in case the annua as upto 40,000/- per annum. In that his monthly income was R nnual income of the claimant at . Learned counsel for the claima en taken that salary of the claim e considered that the annual inco 00/. It is contended that the cla x has stated that his monthly in 0/-.I am not much impressed w

scar with triangular shape on cannot be given regarding a case of permanent disability. on section 142 (c) of the act head or face is considered as s of these healed scars on the disability certificate issued by that the claimant sustained s a death case nor it is a case hesitation in holding that the mount as compensation under amount can be awarded under al income of the injured or the this case claimant himself has Rs.4000/- Calculating on these t the time of accident becomes ant argued that merely because mant was Rs.4000/- per month, ome of the claimant was more aimant when appeared in the ncome at the time of accident with this contention of learned

counsel for the claimant. Either the claimant has taken false plea in the petition or he has deposed falsely when he appeared in the witness box. I feel courts cannot encourage the persons who have no hesitation in telling a lie or taking false pleas before the courts for their personal gains. When claimant himself has taken pleas that his monthly income was Rs.4000/- per month at the time of accident, now he cannot be allowed to say that his income was Rs.3000/-per month, in the absence of any amendment in the claim petition. On this point of legal controversy learned counsel for the claimant place his reliance upon case law National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Indu Sharma and others 2000 ACJ 808 (P&H), and s\Sharabai and antoher Vs.P.Sahebkhan and others 2006 ACJ 229 (Karnaaka). In case law referred above, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Indu Sharma and others, it was held that it is not correct that section 163-A of the Act shall apply only if annual income of the deceased or disabled [person was within the range of Rs.40000/-. In another decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, in case law referred above Sharabai and another Vs. P. Sahebkhan and others it was held that claim petition under section 163-A is maintainable. As per facts of that case the plea was that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.1,00,000/- whereas Tribunal had given findings regarding annual income of the deceased as Rs.28,800/-.

10.     # per sal of the award dated 03.08.2006 shows that =d. Trib nal$ 1 r gram while dismissing the claim petition obser+ed that in the claim petition$ the income of the deceased was shown to be /s.)0006( per month. >5 ta8ing his

FAO- 5083-2006 (O&M)        -9-

earning to be Rs.4000/- per month, the annual income of the claimant-appellant was calculated as Rs.48,000/- per annum. Since there is a cap of Rs.40,000/- per annum  under  Section  163-A,  therefore,  the  claim  petition  of  the  claimant  was dismissed. However, a perusal of the record further reveals that the claimant has specifically deposed in his statement to the effect that his income was Rs.36,000/- per annum as required under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

11.    This Court vide judgment dated 17.05.2024 passed in FAO-407-2006, titled as Satpal Vs. Daljit Singh and others held as under:- "13  The  claim  petitions  are  drafted  by  the  Advocates  and  it  is standard  practice  to  state  the  maximum  earnings  and  amount  of compensation in the pleadings. The Court/Tribunal should appreciate the  evidence  led  on  oath,  rather  than  strictly  adhering  to  the pleadings.  The  present  claim  petition  was  dismissed  solely  on  the stated earning of Rs.6,000/- in the pleadings, completely discarding the  evidence  presented.  This  indicates  a  manifest  failure  to  apply judicial  mind.  Therefore,  the  present  appeal  is  allowed.  The appellant/claimant is granted compensation under Section 163-A by taking his income to be Rs.3,000/- per month."

12.    Further the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground  that  the  appellant  does  not  suffer  any  permanent  disability  due  to  the alleged accident. However, this Court is not satisfied with the reasoning given by the  learned  Tribunal  as  Section  163-A  of  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988  is  now substituted by Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f

01.04.2022)  and  in  the  amended  Section  there  is  no  requirement  regarding

permanent disabilit5 for claiming compensation  nder !ection 16) of the Motor "ehicles #ct$  1%88  and  the  compensation  sho ld  ha+e  to  be  enhanced  as  per s bstit ted stat tor5 pro+ision i.e. !ection 16) of the #ct. Therefore$ the appellant herein is entitled to be granted the benefit of beneficial pro+ision enacted b5 the Parliament  nder  4hapter  11  of  which  !ection  16)  pro+ides  for  pa5ment  of compensation in the case of death in the s m of /s.; la8h and in case of grie+o s h rt$ to the eAtent of /s.2.; la8hs.  The rele+ant !ection 16) of the Motor "ehicles #ct$ 1%88 is reprod ced as  nder:( "Payment of compensation in case of death or grevious hurt, etc. –

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.

(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or grievous hurt in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of the vehicle concerned or of any other person.

(3) Where, in respect of death or grievous hurt due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation has been paid under any other law for the time being in force, such amount of

compensation shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section.]

13.     : rther$ this 4o rt in FAO No.4301 of 2006, titled as "Akaljit Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others" held as under:- "11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2022(4) TAC 738] held that the appellants therein to be granted the benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under Chapter 11 of which Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs.

¶12This Court in FAO-195-2006 titled as Mamta and Others Vs. Happy and Others, decided on 29.05.2024, held that since Motor Vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation, the Judge should not go into the technicalities of the provisions, under which the application or petition is moved but should apply his judicial mind, as these are only the irregularities and not illegalities which cannot be cured. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the loss caused to the claimants or the relationship or to the victim of the limb cannot be compensated. Still the Court should make every effort by exercising its discretion empathetically. Further, Justice should actually be shown to be delivered by application of judicial mind with intelligence, prudence, care and caution and by showing empathy.

The Court decision should be such that they strengthen the trust and confidence of public and litigants in judicial system and judiciary." 1).    *n +iew of the abo+e$ this 4o rt is not satisfied b5 the reasoning gi+en b5 the =d. Trib nal in dismissing the present claim petition filed b5 the appellant( claimant and appeal filed b5 appellant is liable to be allowed. 1;.     @n the to chstone of here(in(abo+e disc ssed findings and 0 dicial precedent$  the  0 dgment  dated  03.08.2006  passed  b5  =d.  Trib nal$  1 r gram stands +itiated d e to complete absence of application of 0 dicial mind.

16.     In view of the above, the claimant/appellant is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2.5 lakh.

¶17So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellant-claimant is granted the interest @9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.

¶18The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today. The appellant-claimant is directed to furnish his bank account details to the Insurance Company/Tribunal. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the bank account of the appellant-claimant.

¶19Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

FAO- 5083-2006 (O&M)        -13-

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE October 03, 2024 G Arora

Whether speaking/non-speaking :  Speaking