AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appellant Insurance Company impugns a judgment dated 11.01.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs. 2,52,400/- was awarded in favour of the First Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 06.08.2005. The only ground raised at the time of hearing of the Appeal is that the Tempo No. HR-38-BG-4803 was not involved in the accident. In any case, there was contributory negligence on the part of the First Respondent and thus, the quantum of compensation is liable to be reduced.
I have before me the Trial Court record. A joint written statement was filed by Respondents No. 2 and 3, that is, driver and owner of the offending vehicle. In the written statement, no specific plea was taken that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. Respondent No. 1 Shobha Ram Sharma filed his affidavit Ex. PW-1/X by way of his evidence. He testified that on 06.08.2005 at about 11.45 a.m. he was riding on the pillion seat of motorcycle No. DL-4S-AP-1530 which was being driven by his friend Bhawani Prasad (PW-2). The offending vehicle driven by Respondent No. 2 in rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the left side of the two-wheeler with its right rear side, while taking a right turn. This part of PW-1''s testimony was not challenged in cross-examination. Even a suggestion was not given to PW-1 as to the manner of the accident. PW-1''s testimony was corroborated by PW-2 Bhawani Prasad who was driving the two-wheeler at the time of the accident. His testimony was also not disputed with regard to the involvement of Tempo No. HR-38-BG-4803 and the manner of the accident.
Of course, Ashok Talwar who is director of Respondent No. 3 M/s. Godawari Polymers Pvt. Ltd. tried to make out a case (without any pleading) that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. He simply stated that at the alleged time of the accident Tempo No. HR-38-BG-4803 was parked outside the godown of Respondent No. 2, that is, at Village Satbari, New Delhi. It is important to note that PW-2 Ashok Talwar is not an eye witness of the accident.
Respondent No. 2 Mintoo who was allegedly driving the Tempo at the time of the accident was not produced to give his version about the involvement and the manner of the accident. R2W1''s evidence claiming non-involvement of the vehicle is of no consequence.
From the unchallenged testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 with regard to the manner of the accident, it is established that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Tempo No. HR-38-BG-4803 by its driver Respondent No. 2.
The Appeal is groundless; the same is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The cost shall be paid to the First Respondent within four weeks, failing which the First Respondent shall be paid the cost out of the statutory amount deposited in this Court. If the cost is paid, the statutory amount shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.