HiGHCOURTOF^Hj-fATTISGARHATBlLASPUR Sinflle^Bench : Hon'bleShn Dilib Raosaheb Deshmukh.J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 719 of2007 , JahihAhmed versus State of Ghhattisgarh& two others ORKER Postfor ^-01-2008 'i;.^ Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 1-^ .tf '^•.fs yir ^:iMI^;%Nyil Y vii: HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR SinfljeBench : Hon'ble Shri DiliDRaosaheb Deshmukh, J. MiscelIaneousADDeal(C)No.719of2007 Abpellant ADplicant Resoondente Non-Applicants Jahin Ahmed, aged about 36 (34) years, Son of Shri Hazi Mghammed Rafique, R0sidentpf Quclakhu Line, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon yersys State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Collector,Rajnahclgaon(C.G.) Block MedicalOfficer, PrimaryHealth Centre, Dongargaon, Tahsil, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) -• \:1:'. ^ . Gangyram Nirmalj^ir, aged about 44 (42) yeare Son <af Shri Jivrakhan, Resident of JHospital Cotony, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (G.G.) MiscellaneousADDeal undeKSection173(1VoftheNlotQrVehicles :^Act.1988.;^:,:'; ; :;1;;';' Preserrt: Shri P;K. e.T'iwacKSeniorAdyoeatewith Shri Rakesh .Thaky^i'c&unseiaQrlWiKjaiRiaeliant.iC.'.:.. ,..'.::' .• • .:• . : ' Shri Vaswani,GoverriRieritAdvoegitefortheState. 1. 2, 3. % m \ Eijl ll.'ll llil ..':vr }•• ORDER (Passed on this 2 ^ clayof Jahuary, 2008) Inthis appeal bytheclaimantwtiois aggrieved bythedismissalof hisapplicationunderSection 166 oftheMotorVehiclesAct, 1988 :(hereinafter referred t8 as the 'Act of 1988) vide ordjer dated 11.11.2007 passed in claimcase^NQ. 28/2Q06^by Motor Acdcigrte Claim&Ti-ibunal, RajnandgaQn (for brevily, 'M.A.G.T.) on thegreund thattlie'accideniwith the stationeryjeepNo.Q.M.P. 02-0256 (henceforth,'thejeep)wasc^used. due tptiisnegligent drivingofmotor cycleNo. C.G. 08-2786 (henCe^oi'tliy 'the motQr cycle), the following qyestions arise fer determination: ^ ^ Whether the admission of guilt by the respondent No.2 in the criminal trial for an offenee under Sections 279 and 337 ofthel.P.C. issuffieientto cohstitute proofofcaysing pf the accident due to the rash and negtigent driving of the jeep by the respondent No.2 B) Whethertheclaimanthadsufferedpermaneintdisablement dueto theaccident? ^ C) If yes, whether the prpvisions Contained in Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 could be invoked for awarding compensation to the claimant or the learned MA.C.T. ought to have atleast awarded eompensafion under Section 140 oftheActlof 1988 onthe pri|ieiple6fhofault? 2. Thefollowing factsare notdisputed inthis appeal: a) b) c) d) e) that on 18.03.2002 the claimant was riding motor cyGle toward^ Bongargaon; thafthe claiman^hacl Sustairied jnjury on his right ankle due to collisibn ctf(hernQtorcyClewiththejeep;and that the respondent No.2 i.e. the clriverof the jeep was fined Rs.500/- by the Magistrate fbr offBntees under Sections279 and 337 of I.P.C. on admission ofguilt. that the fine amount was deposited by the appellanVclaimant and receipt was obtained and kept by .thedaimant. that althpugh the aecident had oecurred pn 18.03.2002, the claimant flled a composite application under Section 166 andSeCtiah 140 oftheAetof 1988 pn 25.67.2005. that tlie responderit No.2 had carried the claimant in We jeep to Ihe main hospital, Rajhiandgaon, where flhe claimantwasadlnittedon18^)3.2Q02. w. ^:i^SS::&i. ^^^-^tT^^L^;^.-^: liiujpe pi LUty pa^se iueuJjB|3 sqt 'z'pN lUspyodsa^^^ •se uoiinosscucl IBUILUUO sqi USLIAA 'yQBGpueuley '|Bi!dsp|-| PUISIQ ^LitoiipiunojBUEuetiyeLunquotUeu.iiBlosLiiRsujeoz'oNiuspuodssjaiij.. •dsafsyi^isanooi SW ^U!BBBpsR!||03puesnq84^s>|ey9AO^^c^ peq iueiU!B|o sqi f'uOBBpueuJBa ujo.CBuiu.iposBm snc] e 'su.iii ^o luiod ^4i IV 'WSSGd S^lAq i|3j. yo^iuobsip aujos oi enp tuai^ sqi Buipus^^ ai8M ;A8L|l SE souaijnooo ^o SLUII sifl ).e AisyoiiEis SEM upeBjeByoa 'jstuso i)i|E8|-| Aieiuud 'jsoiyQ |BO!ps|<\| >|o6|g 8L|i o} peuoiie deal' 9L|i iei)ipspBS|d pye g'ON luspuodsai eqiAq dssfsiiiio BuiAupiUsBiiBsu pye L|SEjoisnpp9sneaseM^ap!§oesiL|tlgt|ip8!US|:)Siuspuods£U8L|l 'y •psi.U!B|osBNy-/(^0?S®syiK>1uo!Nsuaflu.loQ? •lUapiOOB siji ui e|^ue iqBu uo Bui^smo isod 61 sn^ %g2 i^ :(u9ULig|q^^ pajayns peq luetuieio sjLjileifl pspB9|d SBMIJ 'luspiooBsyiJeBeSiiiLiqui •t7 pue sjesA z ueqi SJQUJ •s'! l?ooZ'Z6'91-ucl psnssi siBbyiiJSO AiiliqBSip lusuBiujad p siseq eqi UQ •S|>|UB iL|6y 941 uo ps|e se pesq sqi uo AjnfU! psuiEisns pue umop ||p^eL| 'L|oiqM oishp '^04 aqi uioy spAo joioiu siq IsuiBBe psi|sep pue jauueuu iueBilBsu pue ysej e ui uoeSpueyfea spjeMOi deaf sqiSAOJp z'oN luapuodssj 341 'UQBBjeByoaspjBMOi 9pAo JPIQLU 8L|i BuiMJpseM St) S|!4M ZOOZ'SO'81. UOIBW P9Pe9|d Peli lue^!e|o/lue||Sdde 9W '8861 ia PV 84l 10 99V uoipes JSpun uofleoiidde siq U| •£ •SWi ':'li'?i;"isi;ll .^1 .^ ~ICK: * •euy O]. psouaiues pue:SlBfls!BB|A| 9t|l Aq iiinB yo yoissiLUpe uo peioiAUoo SBM Z'QN luepuodsajeqi'ieqi (q 'ZOOZ'90'eZ u° ISSJJB jsye 'g-ON luapuodsaj sqi IsuieBe paqounei SBM uopossojd IEUILUU;! pue |eiidsoq 941 ui Soiiod sq^ Aq pepjooaj sew 7ys<;B^/ fjeyso iet|i (6 Ittlcil^ wm m: [•!1':1 theguil^and'paid fineimposed byWe Court and also obtained and kept the receiptwith him. : 5. The learned MA.C.T. reeorded a fihding on the basis of admission made by the appellant/claimant in hlis testirnony that the aGcident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the appellantfclaimant, which had colljded against the footrestofthestationery jeep. It was held that theclaimant clid not come fo the Cqurt with clean hands. Qh this ground, thelearnecl M.A.C.T. dismissed the applieation, although,it recorded a finding in paragraph 19 that the'claimant had • !' ' • .' .; suffered 25% pennanentdisabilityintheacciclent. ! 6. ShriP.K.C.Tiwari,leamedSemQrAdvocateappearingonbehaliof the apRellant/claimant made a three-fpld submission. It was argued that ^he. adjiJissi|ct?Gffi;,t) ; 5Milt^by ^ the cnminal ^rpsScuii^^for^ysjng^ccident^u&^ rash ahd hegligentdrivin ought tohavebeentakenjntdC^nsiderationBy^teM.A.C.T.forh accidenthadoceurreddyetorashamJnegligentdrivirigofthej resporTdent Np.2. Reljance was plaeed 'on Kbre LaxnM and offiere y. Unfted/nd»a/nsuranCeCo.t.fd.and offters, 2005 ACJ 543 andSmt. Su^^yw^and v. Kftaza VazfrAff flWmor and others, AIR11994 Andhra'Rradesh 343, It was next urged that even though theapplication underSection166cftheActof1S^forebmpensationwasdismfe leamed MA.G.T,, after reedrdmg afmding that the claimant had suffered permanent disablement dye to the -accident, ought to haye awiarded eompensation under Section 163-A Qf theAct of 1988or atleastjunder SectiQre}40oftheActof1S88onthepnncipleofnofault.' ^ ^.•i^^!^^-, V: l;il *<- tl'' 1 l.;i;i[l--.!!i 7. Oh the bther hand, Shn G.D.Vaswani, learned Gdvernment Advocate for the Stafeargued thatttle finding recorded by the M.A.G.T. that the appellant/claimant had sustained permanent disability was erroneous because the medieal injury.report Ex.P.9 of the District Hospital, Rajnandgapn clearly revealed that no bony injury had been sustained by the appellant/claimant either in the skull or in the right leg. It was also argued that the discharge ticket of the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon didnotmentionthattheappellant/clainianthadsufferedany crush injury jn the right ft?ot. Dr. Sanjay Bakshi, A.W.2, who had issued .1 . • • :. '.:.'.•• .' •• • .•.:'••" disability certifiCate, did not speeifically mention in the certificate that the disability sustained by the claimant was permanerit disability. It was further contended that the disability certificate was issued by the Medical Board without conducting any X-ray of the right ankle of the elaimantand ^s issyed mprethan twoyeare and 4imonths afterthe da^^ l^^ly, it was contendedf^hat Ihe cbndurt c^ the appellant/claimant was sucrtthatthelearhed;iyi.fcC,T.was;3whollyjustifiedinrecorclingafinding thattheclaimanthadnotapproaehed^l'iiecQUrtwithcleanhands.The'fact that the claimant had himself depdsited tKe entire amoynt offinein the cas6 instituted agaihstfKe respondentNo.2 lentfullest support'to SycH a CQnclusion<drawnbythelearnedM.A.C.T.whichwa5furthersubstantiated by the^fact thatthe disaKility eertificate was obtained more than 2 years aftertheaBcidentandtheaRpliGationunderSection 168 6f theActof 1988 waSalsofiledafteralapsepf3^arsand4rnonths.ltvvasalsoargUted that while the appellant/claimant had pleaded that although it was a Gase ofLhead pn collisibn between the jeep and the mcrtor^ appellant/claimaht had.aclmitted -in his testimpny that it iwa& not so. ^ ©tf 1:hesepremises,itwasurgedtl^tsmeetb0^|aimanthadfailed^ 11- iai jBII MN8! -'i-if^'i^s'SS ;^'A. «!,). 6 that he had sustained permanent disability due to the accident, he was not entitled to any relief either under Sectioh 163-A or under Section 140 of theActof1988. 8. Having considered the rival submjssions, 1 have perused the record. The accident hadoccurredon 18.03.2002. The resp6ndentNo.2 had shifted the appellant/claimant ih the jeep to the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. If the jeep was being driven in a rash and negligent rnannerandhadbrushedthemotorcycle oftheappellant/claimantwithits fobtrest,perhapstherespondentNo.2wouldnothavestoppedthejeepas is usually experienced. The testimdhy of Prabhat Bakshi, who was admittedly in the jeep, is wholly unrebutted in cross-examination that the jeep was stationery atthe time of aGcident hecause theywere attending the^patient, who was being shifted by him to the District Hospital, !Rajna!^gai3ri;dyet0^iseor rtfeltbyttTepatientinthelegandthatabus vi^ coraing fromthefrQnt and the m^ to overtakefhe busandintheprocesshadcSllidNwiWthefeotrestbfthesta^ Altheugh the appellant/claimant pleaded that it wa^ a case of^Hsad Bn c^llisionbetweenthejeepandthemQtort^le.headiriittedinparagl-aph 11 of cross-examinatioh that this was riot true. He further admitted that befpre the aceident, He was following a bus going in froht whiGh lent support to the testimony of F'rabhat Bakshi that^^i^ [ ^' : -; •"• ' .::\; . '";:'.'::.' ^ ;! :;; overtaking the bus, the appellanyclaimant had eollided with thestationery jeep. Gontrary to his pleadings, th&lippellant/claimant tiad also admitted •iriparagraph12c^MstestimQnythatthemOtorcyclehadcollidedwithffi fdotrest of the jeep. These fa&ts were rightly faken inta conSideratjon^bg the learhed M.A.CT. while ;recordihg a finding that W 'Q. :a :Sli 's.-'&.l:'&?i)cs :i;;t..' SM €: a." B_ 0- ,0.. ;e; (D ffl :s w '3, Cfl'I !B !:3 •B. !3 <Q 6) w 1 (D ffi •"o' '.c: w <:-I '.3. Q.. •3;. <Et 313.i ^. (B:s >o :.-^.t in' i<D 0_ a>;1: w i 1 •-5: <D u <s§ CL 2 1 <0 <; 3 1 . -%'. oa. .'© 1 ^t m Q-- .as '<a': ;%! tt>w s't t •Q11: 3. ^ ;^s ;B) 3:,: i3" idot Q M ^ t '.©^ U)I t ^^: i:-:i® <B •s' w- i<D;». 'w ::a> ^ss.!r' so a> i.s'I ::0. -(B .'5- roa. Q1w <@' ^ fl>. ^. fla. ^w^ ;a>i, :S!f i^ •^^t-Ii m U) & .3 3 •w ^3 f0 ^: .s -..(3... ffl3 Q. o M::s .» t <n i a),' "E> (6 ;u: ;3 CD i\s 1m ..g.e -3: (6 a,i s (i> 1 1 IS^ oo •s> M M •Q' .0' N> s1 a>_no ? .§.tgs' a> w iu •a -g w fl) fl) m3. <D 3: <i> Ul_ •a- -L& =• '"' ^.•^: ^ |:.'!g 3= w ffl •3. ro ^. m B)3^® w g m •<' ff (C i. 3' B)3 Q. <a o.f s. ^ o ^ ?s. 3di '<• i3. .s- 1m m 1i ? (c 00 Qu K)oo M y ^ ^ d .3. :'a-;t 00 o to Ns ^ -o (D Q (DoI 2:i g 1 2. ^t (Bo o •-;c' a. s> B) 1 0) y (D B) a. n>3 <-^t §t . Q3 1 .w 'g 1:Q.. (D1 3- •a 1 fl)3 tu•o -g <D B) ® 13 ::!• (D B) CT1 '3: Q. 3 <as s <0 00 00 1 Q. m n ^ a> >o-i (6 8 s: s 3o 1 Q3 (D o. nu0' ro <D m 16n 01 s di u -o^ T3 •s o3 c =1 Q. <D CT <Da o3 CT 01 (6 ^ ^! CD §. ~ ' 3: . <a 13.I ^ (B >o -4 ? % f+9. •<D Q. ;.a>l' a> '31 & :,a. m s ^ B)3 <D 3 3i 53•s" -g o"a =r m rt•a :;c s 8 w Q. m 03 .1, Ul s 1 (D 1 1 o3 .(D•3 fll (6 r+ (D Q Bt Q. (D3 o 11 a.c <D <i> 3 -<E <a m a> 8 §• 0 (6 B) 1 fl) . » B) B)3 :&.. B) SlI •ys:K!'^. ^^ -^ ll.' t. w f ^ 'fc-''...<i' u- 1;:!|U i;;l] 8 No.2, he would never have gonetothe Court to pay the fine amount on admission oftheguiltbythe respondent No.2. It clearlyshows thatthe appellant/claimant had become wiser afterthe accident and was adopting tactics tosomehow get compensation on the groynd of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the respondent No.2 which fact was not true. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the so-called admission ofguilt bythe respondent N0.2 can.in no case, be taken into consideration for recording a finding that the accident hadoccurred due to rash and negligent driving of the j'eep by respondent No.2. The citations relied on by theappellant/claimant are clearly distingijiishableon faets and do not help|0the appellant/claimant in any manner. 11. A careful perusalof the provisions contained in Section 163-Aand 140 of the Act of 1988 shows that sustainjng permanent disablement due to the aceklent is an essential ingredient of these provisions before relief could be granted under either bfthose provisions. In the present case, the appellant/claimant hasfailedtoestablishthathehadsustainedpermanent disablement due to the accident, and therefore, fhe provisions contained inSection 163-A and Section 140 oftheActof1988 couldalso not be invoked for granting any compensation to the appellant/claimarif oh the principle of no fault. ThuS.all the pointsfor consideration ofthis appeal go against theappellant/claimant. 12 lntheresult,theappealbeingdevoidofmeritisdismissed. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^Ji^IilMI^l^