Dharam Chand vs Darya Singh and Others

A.N. Jindal, J.—This appeal for enhancement, preferred by the appellant- claimant (herein referred as ''the claimant'') is directed against the award dated 03.04.1993, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (herein referred as ''the Tribunal''), awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum in favour of the claimant and against the respondents jointly and severally, on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident.

Claimant Dharam Chand, a Revenue Officer, who allegedly suffered injuries on 27.04.1991 at about 6:00 p.m. at the hands of respondent No. 1-driver (herein referred as ''respondent No. 1'') when he (Dharam Chand) was alighting from the bus bearing registration No. HNB2379, consequently, he filed the claim petition.

State of Haryana as well as Haryana Roadways contested the claim petition by filing the reply wherein they denied all the allegations and stated that neither the petitioner travelled by the bus bearing registration No. HNB-2379 nor he suffered any injuries by the involvement of the said bus. The claim petition is a result of collusion with the police.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

Whether Dharam Chand-petitioner received injuries in an accident caused by respondent No. 1 Dariya Singh by rash and negligent driving of bus No. HNB-2379 ?

If issue No. 1 is proved, then how much amount the petitioner is entitled as compensation and from whom ?

Whether the petitioner has no locus standi ?

Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ?

Relief.

The Tribunal, while holding that the claimant had failed to prove the rashness and negligence of respondent No. 1, decided issue No. 1 against him. However, it ordered a compensation of Rs. 12,000/- in favour of the claimant on the ground of no fault liability. While deciding issue No. 2, the Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000/-, which the claimant had spent upon the treatment of the injuries. As such, the claim petition was partly accepted while awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of the award amount.

Arguments heard. Record perused. The case of the claimant is that he suffered injuries on his left hip. When he was in the process of alighting from the bus, the respondent No. 1 started it. In order to prove his case, he examined two witnesses namely Satish @ Billu (PW6), a tea vendor and Hans Raj (PW8), an Office Kanungo.

As regards Hans Raj, Office Kanungo (PW8), he being directly subordinate to the claimant, could depose to any extent to support the claimant but still he had his reservations to depose in favour of the claimant. He only stated that when he was sitting at the shop of Satish @ Billu (PW6), Dharam Chand had told him that he fell down from the bus and got the fracture in his left hip. All this goes to show that he, being not an eye witness, was unable to give true account of incident. If he, while sitting on the shop of Satish, had not seen the incident, then how could Satish, a tea vendor, who may obviously be busy in preparing tea, could depose about the incident. No witness has been examined in order to establish if the driver had started the bus after blowing of the whistle by the conductor. This fact could be proved by examining the conductor alone of the said bus but he has not stepped into the witness box to unfold the true facts. The presence of Satish @ Billu (PW6) at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful as he could not be expected to be present on the shop on the day of occurrence, being Sunday. The testimony given by the claimant is also not worth reliance. The same is self contradictory on all the material points. As such, it appears that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in the right perspective and the impugned judgment, being well based and well reasoned, does not call for any interference at this stage.

For the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.