Pramod Kumar vs Naresh Kumar and Others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Actg. C.J.

Appellant-claimant had filed Claim Petition No. 63-S/2 of 2005/02, titled as Parmod Kumar versus Naresh Kumar and others, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,14,898/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition.

Respondents resisted the claim petition by filing separate replies.

The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to damage to car bearing No. CH-01x-2827, caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck driver of truck (Tata) bearing No. HP-09-1923, as alleged? ...OPP

If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, petitioner is entitled? ...OPP

Whether respondent No. 2 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? ....OPR

Whether the respondent has committed contraventions of the policy of insurance and as such, is not liable to pay amount of compensation, as alleged? ...OPR-3

Relief.

The Tribunal, after examining the entire record, granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- with 9% interest in favour of the claimant and against the insurer-respondent No. 3 herein.

Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has questioned the same by the medium of the present appeal, on the ground of adequacy of compensation. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on other issues are not in dispute.

The moot question is whether the compensation awarded is adequate or otherwise.

It appears that the claimant had placed on record bill issued by Saluja Automobiles (Cielo), dated 5th November, 2001, for an amount of Rs. 1,03,706/-, exhibited as Ext. PW-2/B. Unfortunately, the claimant has neither proved this document nor examined any witness to prove whether repairs, figuring as items No. 1 to 114, made in terms of the said bill, were outcome of the said accident.

In the given circumstances, the claimant has to examine the author of the said bill and his statement is required for just decision of the case.

I deem it proper to exercise powers in terms of Order 41 Rule 27(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:

Order 41 Rule 27...

(a)...

(aa)...

(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.

Accordingly, I direct the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) Court, Shimla to allow the claimant to examine the witness(s) orally to prove the said document and also provide opportunity to the respondents to lead evidence in rebuttal. At this stage, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 stated at the Bar that he is under instructions not to lead any evidence in rebuttal. However, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 stated at the Bar that respondent No. 3 may be given opportunity to lead evidence.

Parties are directed to cause appearance before the Tribunal on 7.6.2014. The claimant is at liberty either to produce the witness(s) on his own or seek assistance from the Tribunal and thereafter one opportunity be granted to the insurer to lead evidence in rebuttal. The Tribunal is directed to determine the compensation and make award within three months from today and to report compliance before this Court.

Accordingly, the award stands modified, as indicated above and appeal disposed of.

Send down the records forthwith.