Rakesh Soni and Another vs Krishan Lal and Another

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This judgment of mine will dispose of F.A.O. No. 399 of 1992 (Krishan Lal v. Rakesh Soni and Anr.) and F.A.O. No. 537 of 1992 (Rakesh Soni and Anr. v. Krishan Lal) as the same have arisen out of common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh. The F.A.O. No. 399 of 1992 has been filed by the claimant for the enhancement of the compensation whereas F.A.O. No. 537 of 1992 has been filed for setting aside the award on the ground that the liability to pay compensation on the appellants has been wrongly fastened as on the date of accident i.e. 5.12.1988, Vinod Soni, who is alleged to have caused the accident, was admitted in a hospital at Srinagar. The other plea is that the identity of the vehicle has not been established.

Brief facts of the case are that Krishan Lal had filed a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of injuries and permanent disability suffered by him in a road accident which took place at about 7.30 p.m. on 5.12.1988 on the road dividing Sector 7-8 near Petrol Pump, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh. The driver of the offending vehicle had denied the involvement of the vehicle No. CHM-53 in the accident.

The Tribunal had returned a categoric finding that the claimant had sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Car No. CHM 53 and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of injuries; another sum of Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- for the loss of income.

Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, counsel, appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle, vehemently argued that the car belonging to the appellants has been wrongly involved in the matter and the car which had knocked down the claimant was not being driven by Vinod Soni as on the date of occurrence Vinod Soni was admitted in the Hospital at Srinagar. The other plea of the counsel is that the claimant has not been able to identify the car. As such, no liability can be fastened on the appellants.

Mrs. Deepali Puri, learned counsel for Krishan Lal, appellant, on the other hand contends that the involvement of vehicle No. CHM-53 in the accident has been duly proved. She further states that the compensation awarded to the claimant- Krishan Lal is on the lower side.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, I hardly find any merit in both the appeals, which deserve to be dismissed.

Plea of Mr. Kanwaljit, counsel for the appellants, that the accident was not caused by the driver of the car is without any substance. In the claim petition, there is specific allegation that the claimant sustained injuries as a result of accident caused by the driver of the Car.

In reply to the allegation, the owner of the offending vehicle has not specifically denied the same. The only answer given is that it is denied for want of knowledge. The plea taken by the claimant in the claim petition has not been controverted either expressly or impliedly. Under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the allegation is either to be specifically denied or admitted. The requirement of the order has not been complied with. In view of this, inference can safely be drawn that the allegation was admitted to be correct.

The other important aspect of the matter is that the witnesses of the occurrence were able to identify the car and the colour of the car was correctly given name of the driver of the car could not be given in the F.I.R. as the same could not have been known to the witnesses because the car in question sped away from the spot. In this case, Rakesh Soni and Vinod Soni have admitted that the car in question was owned by the firm of Rakesh Soni.

The witnesses produced by the claimant could not be disbelieved simply for the reason that their village was adjacent to the claimant''s village. Moreso, the parties were not known to each other and there was no enmity between them. As such, there was no reason to implicate the owner of the car falsely.

Coming to the quantum of compensation, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh is just and reasonable. In this view of the matter, both the appeals are dismissed, being devoid of any merit. The parties are left to bear their own costs.