AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Four issues were claimed and were accordingly framed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 11th July '86. For facility of reference, these
are being reproduced below:
i/ Whether the claim petition is not according to the prescribed proforma, as such the petition is not maintainable?......
OPR.
ii/ Whether on 25.06.1985 at about 4.15 pm when the respondent No. 3 under the employment of respondent No. 1 drove the Bus No. 3587-
JKP rashly and negligently and was going to Udhampur town and knocked down the petitioner near PHE office and caused grivious injuries to the
petitioner?... OPP.
iii/ In case issue No. 2 is proved in the affirmative to how much claim of compensation the petitioner is entitled from whom? .........OPP.
iv/ Relief
So far as issue No. 1 is concerned, this was not pressed by the appellant Company and nothing is required to be said in this regard.
So far as issue No. 2 is concerned, the finding recorded was that on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Bus No.
3587 JKP, the respondent claimant suffered grievous injuries. After recording these, findings, the quantum of compensation was examined. It was
held that respondent was earning a sum of Rs. 1250 per month. Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, a sum of Rs. 50,000 was
allowed for pecuniary damages and Rs. 25,000 for non pecuniary damages.
Before adverting to examine this aspect of the matter, it would be apt to notice the injuries sustained by the claimant. Regarding this, the opinion
was expressed by PW 3 Dr. R.S. Gupta. The injuries sustained by the claimant are as under:
Lacerated wound near the left eye brow about 2 cm in length.
Lacerated wounds over the upper and lower lips.
Lacerated wound over the rt. and left knees.
Scratch marks over the rt. and left legs, rt. bigtoe left elbow and lower abdomen.
Patient was in coma, does not respond to vocal commands. Pupils normal sized reacting to light, reflexes, sluggish planters down going.
75,000 which has been allowed on the higher side is an argument which can- not be accepted.
The further fact is that an appeal was preferred. An argument was raised before the learned Single Judge that the appellant Company cannot be
burdened as there was nothing on the record to indicate that the vehicle in question was insured. The above aspect of matter was considered by
the learned Single Judge. It was concluded that the appellant Company should have taken a specific plea. As this was not done, the appellant
Company was held to no relief. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Now the present appeal has been preferred.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the opinion that the appellant Company never claimed
an issue with regard to the question as to whether the vehicle in question was insured or not. It was precisely for this reason, the issues which were
claimed and framed have been noticed above. As such, it is too late now to examine this issue. The view expressed by the learned Single Judge
cannot be faulted in this regard. This appeal as such is found to be without merit and is dismissed. Let the amount, if not already deposited be paid
to the claimant. The amount, as indicated above, if not deposited shall now be deposited with the Registrar (Judl.) of this court within a period of
two months from today. In case, it is not done, then the rate of interest would be 3 percent over and above the interest allowed by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal. The amount to be deposited would be converted into a Fixed Deposit Receipt valid for a period of six months to be
drawn with the State Bank of India, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Jammu, and this FDR would be given to the claimant.