AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prafulla C. Pant, J.—This appeal preferred u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.8.85 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Dehradun in M.A.C. Case No. 70 of 1982, whereby the claim petition of the claimant was dismissed.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Brief facts of the case are that the claimant Vidya Vinodray Makhecha was travelling with her family members in a Matador minibus bearing registration No. GRG 5550 from Chandigarh to Dehradun. The said vehicle was being driven by Babu Lal, driver, respondent No. 3. It is alleged that the driver was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. On 3.11.1981 at about 7.45 a.m., near Subhash Nagar Bus Stop, the aforesaid minibus dashed against a tree in which the claimant Vidya Vinodray Makhecha, got injured.
The claim petition was contested by the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, on the ground that the mishap in question was a minor one, which resulted due to bad/slippery condition of road. It is specifically pleaded by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 that the vehicle was being driven slowly and cautiously. It is further alleged that the injuries suffered by the claimant were of minor nature, requiring mere first aid.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the respondent No. 2, also contested the claim petition and filed its separate written statement. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, it is alleged that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms of insurance policy, as the vehicle was not permitted to take the passengers on hire or reward.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the accident involving the Matador minibus No. GRG 5550, owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by the respondent No. 3 on 3.11.1981 at about 7.45 a.m. in Subhash Nagar, occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver?
(2) Whether the vehicle in question was carrying passengers or was it a private vehicle, as claimed? If so, its effect?
(3) Whether the vehicle in question could not be used for hire or reward? If so, its effect?
(4) Whether the vehicle in question was not being driven by respondent No. 3 at the time of accident? If so, its effect?
(5) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the claimant entitled and against which of the opposite parties?
After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal found that the vehicle registration No. GRG 5550, involved in the alleged accident was a private vehicle. It further held that the vehicle was not permitted to take the passengers on hire or reward. It is also held by the Tribunal that the claimant was travelling in the vehicle in violation of the terms of policy. The Tribunal further took the view that the accident was of a trivial in nature and on a slippery road, the vehicle skidded due to rain. Holding that the driver was not rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence this appeal was filed before Allahabad High Court on 16.12.1985. The appeal was admitted by the said court (Allahabad High Court) on 16.5.1986. This appeal is received by transfer to this Court u/s 35 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000.
Perusal of the lower court record, shows that claimant Vidya Vinodray Makhecha, who was travelling on 3.11.1981 at about 7.45 a.m. in the vehicle bearing registration No. GRG 5550, sustained following injuries, as are mentioned by the claimant-appellant herself in para 12 of the claim petition. The same are being reproduced below:
(1) Traumatic swelling in a circle of 6 cm into 2.50 cm on the forehead with abrasions.
(2) Mental jerks, shock and pains.
Though the claim of Rs. 5,000 has been made against the respondents but it is not clear how the same is calculated. A vague assertion has been made in the claim petition, claiming Rs. 4,000 on account of mental and physical pain apart from said amount of compensation, Rs. 1,000 has been claimed for medical expenses. The statement of V.V. Makhecha, PW 1, recorded by the trial court does not disclose any details regarding medical expenses, etc.
As far as the question of the driver being rash and negligent is concerned, it is specifically stated by Narayan Das, DW 1, that at the time of accident it was raining and there was a turn at the site of the accident. Due to bad/slippery condition of the road, the vehicle dashed against the tree. This witness has further stated that speed of vehicle was only 25-30 kmph. V.V. Makhecha, PW 1, in his examination-in-chief, has admitted that it was raining at the time of the accident. Having gone through the evidence on record, this Court finds no error of law, committed by the Tribunal in appreciating the evidence.
For the reasons, as discussed above, this Court is of the view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
The same is dismissed.
No order as to costs.