Abdul Rashid Shah vs Union Of India And Others

Tashi Rabstan, J

A claim petition, diarized and registered as File no.9/Claim, titled Abdul Rashid Shah v. Union of India and others, was filed by appellant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Budgam (“Tribunal” for succinctness hereinafter) stating therein that on 7th July 2004, he was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle, bearing Registration no.JK04-8143, which was being driven by Mohammad Shreef Jeelani. The motorcycle was hit by CRPF vehicle (Swaraj Mazda), belonging to 58 Bn. Of CRPF bearing Registration no.HR68-1262, causing serious injuries to appellant/claimant. FIR no.111/2004 was lodged in police station Chadoora. Appellant is stated to be working in Police Department and due to accident he was not able to attend his duties for quite some time and he cannot participate in physical training and exercises which are compulsory for promotion to the rank of Head Constable. On the edifice of case set up in claim petition, appellant/claimant sought Rs.13.00 Lakhs as compensation.

Respondents resisted the claim petition.

Given pleading of parties, the Tribunal framed four Issues for adjudication, which are:

1) Whether on 7.7.2004 at Rehpora Namthal CRPF vehicle details of which are given in the petition was driven rashly and negligently by the driver A.S. Mathu and while doing so, hit a motorcycle on which the petitioner was pillion rider and petitioner as a result got injured? OPP

2) In proof of Issue no.1 whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation if so, how much and from whom? OPP

3) Whether the pillion rider has suffered any legal injuries and is not entitled to pay compensation?

4) Relief.

Claimant/appellant produced five witnesses, besides himself. Evidence of claimant was closed on 2nd November 2017. Respondents examined only one witness — respondent no.2. By Award dated 10th June 2017, the Tribunal has given compensation in favour of claimant/appellant in the amount of Rs.1,83,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of iling of petition till final realization. Aggrieved of the Award dated 10th June 2017, appellant/claimant has come up with Appeal on hand, imploring setting-aside thereof and modification of compensation by enhancing the compensation.

I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

Counsel for appellant/claimant, to cement the case set up in appeal, has stated, as is also coming to fore from perusal of the Appeal, that the Tribunal has not considered the statement of witnesses produced and examined by claimant/appellant in support of his claim petition. It is maintained that petitioner due to accident suffered 60% disablement, which fact was certified by concerned Medical Board and certificate in question was proved during course of trial and the expenses incurred by him were also proved.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has insisted that appellant/ claimant has not suffered any serious injury or any loss of income, efficiency or any disablement which in any manner would diminish his future earnings or chances of promotion. He has also urged that claimant on the date of accident was working as Head Constable in Police Department. According to him, even after accident, claimant/ appellant underwent four months’ intermediate training class course at SKPA Udhampur from 2nd June 2014 to 2nd October 2014 and completed successfully the said training course and subsequently promoted as ASI and, therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Having an overall view of the case set up, the submissions of learned counsel for appellant qua computation of compensation on account of loss of income, pain and sufferings and medicine, has no impetus. The Tribunal has taken into account all the facets of the matter while rendering impugned

Award. The Tribunal has lucidly and comprehensively discussed and squared off all Issues. As is manifest from perusal of impugned Award, petitioner for some period of time had to remain away from his employment, but later on he resumed his normal duties and in due course of time he was promoted as well. There has been no loss of income either during period of his recovery from injuries or at the later stage. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly said and held that claimant/appellant is not entitled to any compensation under the head Loss of Income. Petitioner had before the Tribunal sought Rs.10.00 Lakhs on account of medical treatment. However, claimant/appellant, as is conspicuous from impugned Award, has not produced prescription and/or medical bills about his treatment that he is stated to have taken after he suffered injuries in the accident. The Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case as also statement of witnesses and thereafter granted ‘just compensation’ in the amount of Rs.1,83,000/- in favour of appellant/claimants and as a consequence of which, impugned Award does not warrant any interference.

Resultantly, the Appeal on hand is liable to be dismissed. The judgement rendered in the case of Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande and another, (2017)

3 SCC 351, relied upon by counsel for appellant, in view of being distinguishable in facts from instant one, does not document the case of appellant.

For all that has been said above, the Appeal is dismissed with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.

Copy be sent down.