Om Parkash vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

J.P. Singh, J.—Claiming compensation of Rs. 1,57,000 for the damage caused to his house and movables lying therein when vehicle No. JK

02-G 3929, driven rashly and negligently by Vijay Kumar, its driver had steered off the road near Suankha Morh, Vijaypur and barged into his

newly constructed residential house, Om Parkash, owner of the house had filed Claim Petition No. 739/Claims in Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Jammu.

His claim petition was contested only by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the offending vehicle because the owner and driver of the

vehicle had opted not to appear before the Tribunal to contest the claim.

The Tribunal had framed following issues to decide the claim petition, which for facility of reference are reproduced hereunder:

(1) Did the petitioner suffer damage to his property in an accident which occurred on 26.2.2000 due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle

bearing No. JK 02-G 3929? OPP

(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, what compensation petitioner is entitled to? OPP (3) Relief. OP Parties

To substantiate the claim, the claimant had appeared as his own witness besides examining Mohan Lal in support of the claim. No evidence had

been led by the insurance company.

Although the Tribunal had decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant yet it proceeded to dismiss the claim petition vide its judgment of

27.5.2002 thereby deciding issue No. 2 against the claimant.

Aggrieved by the Tribunal's judgment, the claimant-appellant has come up in appeal to this Court seeking setting aside of the impugned

judgment and passing an award allowing his claim.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

It is no doubt true that the appellant-claimant had not produced any evidence indicating the value of the property, i.e., house consisting of two

rooms and movables lying therein; but the question which falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether even after coming to the conclusion

that the appellant's property had been found to have been damaged because of tortious act of the driver and owner of the vehicle No. JK 02-G

3929 in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, would the Tribunal be justified in refusing grant of compensation to the claimant who had not

produced evidence indicating the actual financial loss caused to his property?

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals have been constituted by the Government under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as a social security measure

inter alia to provide speedier compensation to those who suffer because of the use of motor vehicles on the road. Compensation allowable by such

Tribunals is guided by what is contained in Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act. Awarding of 'just compensation', as contemplated u/s 168 of the

Act would not thus permit throwing out of a claim petition leaving the claimant high and dry even when the Tribunal finds that damage had been

caused to his property.

In such cases where evidence is not forthcoming as to the actual damage caused to the property, the Tribunal is required to assess and award

compensation employing some amount of guesswork and some sympathy, keeping in view the nature of damage caused to the property and

discomfort suffered by its owner. The Tribunal may thus presume the existence of such facts which it thinks likely to have happened, having regard

to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, of course, in their relation to the facts and circumstances

of a particular case and award compensation on such assessment to the claimant so that the intention of the legislature in providing speedier remedy

to the sufferers of the motor accidents was achieved.

The evidence produced by claimant in the present case had established that one of the two rooms of his house had been completely damaged

whereas the other room had suffered cracks and the house as such was uninhabitable. The appellant had thus been compelled to hire a house for

his shelter at a monthly rental of Rs. 800. He specifically stated that movables including a steel box, television, fan, stabilizer, sewing machine, etc.,

lying in the house at the time of accident were completely damaged.

The evidence produced by the claimant had remained uncontroverted as the insurance company contesting the claim had not produced any

evidence in rebuttal.

Appellant had assessed the damage caused to two concrete rooms of his house at Rs. 1,00,000 and the damage caused to the movables at

Rs. 30,000. He had claimed an amount of Rs. 35,000 for inconvenience, mental shock and suffering which he had been unnecessarily put to

because of the tortious act of the driver and owner of vehicle No. JK 02-G 3929.

Insurance company, while meeting the pleadings of the appellant had pleaded that compensation claimed by the appellant was quite exorbitant

and unreasonable. In other words, it was only the quantum of compensation which had been disputed by the appellant insurance company and not

the entitlement of the claimant to compensation in the event of his having been found entitled thereto.

The Tribunal had, therefore, erred in rejecting appellant's claim in toto because the claim petition does not appear to have been decided by the

Tribunal in accordance with law.

Tribunal's finding on issue No. 2 cannot thus be justified.

Keeping in mind the laudable intention behind constitution of the Claims Tribunals for speedier settlement of claims arising out of the use of

motor vehicles, I do not consider it proper to send the case back to the Tribunal to assess the damage caused to the appellant's property because

of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. JK 02-G 3929, when more than eight years have already passed and appellant's claim of compensation

for damage to his property remains still unsettled. It is thus considered appropriate to assess the damage caused to the appellant's property in view

of the provisions of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

In view of the uncontroverted evidence on record that one of the rooms of appellant's house had been damaged and the other had suffered

cracks rendering whole of it uninhabitable, compelling the appellant to hire a house at a monthly rental of Rs. 800 for his shelter, I am of the view

that 'just compensation' for the damage caused to the immovable property of the appellant should not in any case be less than Rs. 20,000, which is

the minimum amount, which a person may in the ordinary course of things spend in raising an unfinished concrete structure of two rooms.

Taking into account the minimum cost of a sewing machine, television set, steel box, automatic stabilizer and a fan, which have been proved to

have been damaged as a result of the accident caused by the vehicle, the appellant would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 10,000 as compensation

therefor. Appellant needs to be compensated for the inconvenience caused to him in living in a rented house and paying an amount of Rs. 800 per

month as rent. He is, therefore, held entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 10,000 as compensation for the inconvenience caused to him in putting

up in a rented house rather than in his own house.

The appellant is thus entitled to an amount of Rs. 40,000 by way of compensation for the damage caused to his house and articles lying therein

by the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. JK 02-G 3929 by its driver and owner. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. being the insurer of the vehicle

is required to indemnify the owner and pay compensation to the appellant-claimant.

Finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 2 is accordingly set aside and substituted, holding appellant-claimant entitled to recover an amount of Rs.

40,000 along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization from the respondents.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. shall pay the awarded amount to the claimant within a period of six weeks.

Setting aside the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu's award passed on 27.5.2002, this appeal is accordingly allowed and an award for

recovery of an amount of Rs. 40,000 along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its

realization is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondents.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to satisfy the award within a period of six weeks.