Mohinder Singh vs J.B. Solvex Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Another

G.R. Majithia, J.—This appeal is directed against the order of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala whereby he dismissed the application for compensation filed u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short ''the Act'') filed by the appellant.

The facts: The appellant was driving a cart loaded with wood and was proceeding from Kapurthala towards Jalandhar. He was driving the cart on his left side and a lamp was hanging under the cart. When the cart reached the road from where two link roads bifurcate towards villages Dhaliwal Dona and Dhawankhe Jagir, respondent No. 2 came driving truck bearing registration No. PBJ 9145 from Kapurthala side. It was being driven rashly and negligently and at a high speed. The driver did not use the dipper. The truck dashed against the cart and smashed it. The appellant fell down on the road. The heavy wood and some part of the cart fell on him. He suffered multiple injuries. The truck was owned by M/s. J.B. Solvex Industries (P) Ltd., Wariana, Kapurthala, respondent No. 1, a multimillionaire, which wielded influence with the police and the criminal case was hushed up. The appellant remained in different hospitals for treatment and had been confined to bed due to multiple injuries.

At the trial, the respondents did not put in appearance despite service and ex parte proceedings were taken against them.

The appellant-claimant appeared as PW 2 and stated that he was taking his cart loaded with wood towards Jalandhar in the night. A lantern was burning under the cart. When the cart reached near the turning of villages Dhaliwal Dona and Dhawankhe, a truck bearing registration No. PBJ 9145 came from Kapurthala side. It was being driven at a very high speed. The truck driver did not apply dipper and struck against the cart. He fell down from the cart and sustained injuries. The wood which was loaded in the cart fell upon him due to the impact of the truck. He was brought to Kapurthala. He was referred to P.G.I, but not admitted there. Then he was taken to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala where he remained admitted. He received injuries on the whole of his body and his spinal cord was fractured. He was bed-ridden and was not able to move. He was brought to the court on a cart. The police were conniving with the owner of the truck since he was an influential person. Balwant Singh and Sucha Singh came to the spot at the time of the accident but they were conniving with the owner of the truck. He was not cross-examined. His statement has a ring of truth. The same version was unfolded in the claim petition which was filed on April 13, 1984 and the statement on oath was made on February 3, 1986. The occurrence took place on April 9, 1984. The claim petition was filed within four days of the occurrence. It appears that correct version was unfolded in the petition. It also appears to be correct that the police did not prosecute the criminal case for some extraneous considerations and the version is probabilised by the fact that in the claim petition it was specifically pleaded that accident was witnessed by Balwant Singh son of Ganda Singh and Sucha Singh son of Balwant Singh of Dhawankhe Jagir who had their farmhouses near the place of accident. It was also stated in the claim petition that the F.I.R. was incorrectly recorded at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala in connivance with the police to save the owner and the driver of the truck from legal action. The witnesses who witnessed the occurrence did not come forward to support the claimant presumably for the reasons given in the claim petition. There appears to be pressure on them not to depose about the occurrence and the pressure can only be from the person/persons who are likely to be benefited if the claim petition fails for want of proof. There is thus no escape from the conclusion that the accident was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the truck driver.

PW 3 Dr. Rajinder Kumar deposed that the claimant was admitted in Rajindera Hospital, Patiala on April 14, 1984. He had suffered neck injury and as a result thereof his cervical vertebra was fractured. His four limbs were paralysed and there was no chance of his improvement and the disability was total. There is no rebuttal to this evidence. In cases of bodily or physical injury, the damages may be general or special or both. The former represents a solatium or satisfaction for the pain, infirmity and attendant circumstances like mental pain, disgrace and indignity. The latter represents compensation for pecuniary loss, e.g., medical expenses, or other expenses properly incurred on account of the injury, loss of business, salary or earning capacity. Under the former head, the damages may be exemplary in cases where the defendant''s conduct has been wanton or reckless. The claimant stated that he had spent Rs. 30,000/- or Rs. 35,000/- on his treatment. There is no documentary evidence for the expenses incurred on the treatment. A cart driver may not be knowing the significance of keeping documentary evidence for the expenses incurred on medical treatment. May be, at that time all the efforts were made to provide medical care to the claimant to relieve him of the agony he was undergoing and to save his life. The nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant-appellant indicates that medical expenses must have been incurred. The figure given by the appellant may be exaggerated and in the circumstances of the present case, I think it will be reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under this head. PW 3 further stated that the disability is total meaning thereby that the claimant-appellant will not be able to carry on his normal avocation. The claimant stated that he used to ply cart on hire and earn Rs. 2,000/-per month. On the day of the accident, he was 45 years of age and reasonably expected to live upto 70 years. His earning capacity would decline after he attains the age of 60 years. Till then he is likely to carry on his avocation and earn Rs. 2,000/- per mensem. As a result of the disability, he is bed-ridden and he even cannot move out and in the circumstances of the present case, I think it will be reasonable to allow a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the head of general damages. Thus I award him compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the accident till realisation of the amount against the respondents, who are jointly and severally liable to discharge the liability. The name of respondent No. 3 was not disclosed in the claim petition. In the appeal memo of appearance was filed by Mr, Pardeep Bedi on behalf of United India Insurance Company Ltd. The company did not dispute that the vehicle was not insured with it. The counsel was given hearing and he did not bring any material on record or could satisfy me that the insurance company was not liable to discharge the liability.