Jaspreet Singh Mehta vs State of Punjab

Kuldip Singh, J.—Jaspreet Singh Mehta has filed this appeal against the award dated 30.8.2005, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short ''the Tribunal''), vide which the claim petition of the claimant/appellant u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short ''the Act''), was dismissed.

The case of the claimant/appellant before the Tribunal was that on 4.4.2002, at about 2:45 PM, while driving his Maruti car bearing No. PB-65-A-9620, he was going from Nangal to Mohali. When he reached near Focal Point, Chanalon, Near Sarpanch Dhaba, Tehsil Kharar, a white Contessa car bearing No. PB-12-E-1027, being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2-Sham Lal, came on the wrong side of the road while trying to overtake another car and struck against right side of the car of the claimant/appellant. As a result of the accident, claimant/appellant received injuries on his right pelvis, right elbow and right eye. Due to the accident, operation was done and plates were inserted in right pelvis and elbow. Five stitches were applied on right eye. Femur head of right side got distorted and blood vessels were badly damaged. Claimant/appellant received treatment from Dr. R. Sen and Dr. S.S. Gill of Department of Orthopaedics, PGI, Chandigarh. He is still under treatment.

At the time of accident, claimant/appellant was 32 years of age. He has done Bachelor of Engineer in Industrial and Production and was working as a Surveyor with United India Insurance Company Ltd., New India Assurance Company Limited, National Insurance Company Limited and Oriental Insurance Company Limited. He was earning Rs. 60,000/- per month. Claimant/appellant had spent an amount of Rs. 70,000/- on his treatment.

Petition was contested by respondents No. 1 and 2, who filed separate written statement. It was pleaded that accident took place due to negligent driving of the claimant. FIR No. 33 dated 4.4.2002 was registered against the claimant. Claimant was facing trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ropar, regarding the accident in question. It was stated that the said Contessa car was being driven by respondent No. 2 with due care. The accident took place due to negligent driving of car by the claimant. The accident was admitted, but claimant was blamed for the accident. From the pleadings, following issues were framed:-

Whether the respondent No. 2 by driving Contessa Car No. PB-12-E-1027 rashly and negligent caused the accident on 4.4.2002 resulting in injuries to the claimant? OPP

If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP.

Relief.

While deciding issue No. 1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it is not proved that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of said Contessa car bearing No. PB-12-E-1027 by respondent No. 2. In view of findings of the Tribunal, no finding was recorded on issue No. 2 and consequently, the claim petition was dismissed by observing that otherwise also, the income of the claimant is Rs. 60,000/- per month and he is not entitled to file claim petition u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act.

Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant has come up in appeal.

I have heard learned senior counsel for the claimant/appellant and learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and have also carefully gone through the file.

First of all, perusal of the original claim petition shows that it was filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act and not u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal in this regard are patently against the record and are set aside. The claim petition is to be decided on merit.

In this case, the Maruti car of the claimant/appellant bearing No. PB-65-A-9620 and said Contessa car bearing No. PB-12-E-1027 were involved in collision near village Chanalon, Tehsil Kharar on the Ropar-Chandigarh highway. Both the parties put blame on each other. In this case, the Tribunal has heavily relied upon the registration of FIR No. 33 dated 4.4.2002 against the claimant and the fact that no report was lodged by the claimant with the police regarding the accident. Therefore, the testimony of PW 1 and PW 4 was discarded.

The learned senior counsel for the appellant/claimant has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has ignored certain material facts and the fact that the said Contessa car belonged to Health Minister, Punjab. Sham Lal was the driver of the Health Minister, Punjab. Therefore, the respondent had influence over the police and got the FIR registered against the claimant. It has been argued that rash and negligent driving is to be inferred from the circumstances and also from the statements of the witnesses and not merely from the fact that a criminal case has been registered against the claimant.

Learned senior counsel for the appellant/claimant has vehemently argued that in the said criminal case, the claimant was acquitted, vide judgment dated 3.5.2005 (Ex. PZ/2), whereas claimant had also filed a criminal complaint No. 287 dated 24.7.2003 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, in which Sham Lal has been convicted. Appeal of Sham Lal had been dismissed. The copy of judgment dated 29.9.2008, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ropar, titled as Jaspreet Singh Mehta Versus Sham Lal shows that Sham Lal-respondent was convicted under Sections 279 and 337 IPC for rash and negligent driving regarding the present occurrence and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- on each count and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment of 10 days each. Sham Lal-respondent was also convicted u/s 338 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The copy of the judgment dated 20.8.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) FTC, Ropar, shows that appeal filed by Sham Lal-respondent against his conviction and sentence was dismissed and Sham Lal (driver) was ordered to be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. Further copy of order of Criminal Revision No. 2140 of 2011 titled as Sham Lal Versus Jaspreet Singh, passed by this Court on 18.10.2011 shows that revision against his conviction and sentence was dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the effect that sentence imposed upon Sham Lal was reduced to the period already undergone. In this way, during the criminal trial, it was found by the Courts that Sham Lal (driver) was rash and negligent in driving the offending Contessa car. The conclusion was drawn after examining the statements of eye witnesses and other material evidence on file.

In this case, even if the evidence on file is independently examined, the same conclusion is to be drawn. The copy of the site plan (Ex. RW 5/A) shows that the Maruti car of the claimant is parked on the left side of the road when coming from Kurali, while the offending Contessa car is lying in the nearby ditches to its left side while going from Chandigarh. The police had claimed that accident took place at point ''A'', which is in the middle of the road. However, the position of the cars shows that right side of Maruti car was badly damaged and probably the Maruti car stopped immediately after the accident. The offending Contessa car went out of control and fell on its left side ditches after hitting the Maruti car, which was on its correct side.

The claimant has examined himself as PW 1 and had stated that the said Contessa car was coming on the wrong side of the road and hit his car. In cross examination, he had asserted that the said Contessa car was overtaking another Tata mobile car when the accident took place. When the statement of claimant is compared with the site plan, it is almost near the reality. It appears that the Contessa car went on its right side while overtaking some vehicle and in this process, hit the incoming Maruti car of the claimant. The claimant had also examined one Opinder Badyal (PW 4), who was present at the gate of Kurali Automobile, when the accident took place. He is resident of Kurali.

On the other hand, respondent has examined one Dharam Pal Sharma (RW-1), who is resident of Sector-41-A, Chandigarh, who was riding the said offending Contessa car. He claimed that car was at the speed of 40/50 kilometers and was going on the left side of the road, which is contradicted by the site plan. Respondent has also examined one Dilbagh Singh (RW-2), who is running Sarpanch Dhaba, which is near the place where the accident took place. He had claimed that the Maruti car was coming on the wrong side and the said Contessa car was being driven on the correct side. The same is also contradicted by site plan. The Tribunal should have appreciated the background of the parties and the case. The car belonged to the Health Minister of Punjab and Sham Lal-respondent apparently unauthorisedly took away the said Government Contessa car for his personal use. The said Contessa car was a Government vehicle and as usual with the Government vehicles, particularly the drivers of the Ministers, they are in habit of taking the law of the land for a ride. The site plan clearly depicts that Maruti car was on its correct left side when it was hit by the said offending Contessa car. The police apparently came under the influence of the Minister or senior functionaries of the Government to register the FIR against the claimant. Once the FIR is registered against the claimant, the police is unlikely to record the cross version of claimant that it was the fault of the said Contessa car driver.

In view of the foregoing discussion, I come to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending Contessa car by Sham Lal. Accordingly, the findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are reversed.

Now, coming to the injuries suffered by the claimant, claimant has claimed that he has suffered injuries on the pelvis, right elbow and right eye. Five stitches were applied on his right eye. Two plates have been inserted in his right elbow. One plate has also been inserted in his pelvis. The doctor has recommended the replacement of joint of pelvis. He claimed that he remained admitted in Trauma Ward of PGI, Chandigarh from 4.4.2004 to 24.4.2002 and then, from 6.6.2002 to 11.6.2002. He claimed that he cannot walk properly without the help of crutches. He has spent more than Rs. 70,000/- on his treatment. The medical bills are Ex. P1 to Ex. P100. He has also examined Jiwan Kumar, Record Clerk, PGI, Chandigarh (PW 5), who has proved the admission of claimant in Trauma Ward from 4.4.2002 to 24.4.2002 and then, from 6.6.2002 to 11.6.2002. Claimant also examined Dr. P. Venkatesan, Junior Resident (PW 8), who has testified that two surgeries were conducted on the claimant. First surgery was debridement of right elbow fracture and K-wire fixation was done on 5.4.2002. On 12.4.2002, fracture right acetabulum with posterior dislocation right hip was operated with plates. In the second admission, the elbow fracture right side was operated on 7.6.2002 with two plates. Jaspreet Singh is still under OPD treatment and may be required to go AVN treatment. He may also be required to remove the plates. He also proved the disability certificate (Ex. PW 8/A) showing that claimant has 58% disability of the whole body, which is to be reassessed after every three years.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the entire medical bills amounting to Rs. 70,000/- are allowed. Another sum of Rs. 30,000/- for future treatment is also allowed.

The claimant has produced Surinder Kumar, Senior Assistant of National Insurance Company (PW 2), Jaswinder Pal Singh, Senior Assistant of United India Insurance (PW 3) and Rulda Singh of New India Insurance Company (PW 5) to show that claimant was empanelled as surveyor with their respective their companies. The claimant has claimed that he is an income tax assessee. He has proved his income tax return for the year 2001-2002 to show that his total income was Rs. 1,74,595/-. After the deduction, the same was Rs. 1,71,210/-, which is round off to Rs. 1,71,000/-. Rs. 23,175/- paid as income tax is also deducted. Total annual income comes to Rs. 1,47,825/-. Monthly income comes to Rs. 12,318-75, which is round off to Rs. 12,320/-. As a result of the fracture and operation, the claimant must have remained bed ridden for at least three months. Therefore, for three months, there was total loss of income. The compensation for loss of income comes to Rs. 12,320 x 3 = Rs. 36,960/-.

As a result of major injury on the pelvis, the claimant will not be able to live normal life. The learned senior counsel for the appellant/claimant has produced upto date admission slip of PGI, Chandigarh, which shows that as per present status, there is shortening of leg by 1.5 cm. Therefore, disability will be permanent in nature. Keeping in view the fact that there can be some improvement after three years, for first three years the loss of income @ 58% disability comes to Rs. 85,738-50 per year i.e. Rs. 2,57,215-50. Since the age of the claimant was 32, the multiplier of 17 is to be applied. In this way, compensation for next 13 years is also to be assessed. I am of the view that with the passage of time, there can be considerable improvement, though some disability will remain. Therefore, by way of guess, for the remaining 13 years, the disability is assessed at 30%, which comes nearly to half of the present disability. For 30% disability, the compensation of Rs. 44,347/- per year is allowed, which comes to Rs. 5,76,511-00. For attendant charges @ Rs. 2,500/- per month are also allowed, which comes to Rs. 7,500/-. For pain and suffering and special diet for 25 days of admission @ Rs. 1,000/- per day are also allowed, which comes to Rs. 50,000/-. The compensation summarised as under is allowed:-

7.5% interest is also allowed from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. Respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.