FAO No. 150 of 1998 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.1.2010 (1) F.A.O. No. 150 of 1998 (O&M) Devinder Kumar alias Sonu .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and another ..Respondents. (2) F.A.O. No. 159 of 1998 (O&M) Rajinder Kumar and another .. Appellants v. Chote Lal and others ..Respondents. (3) F.A.O. No. 203 of 1998 (O&M) Resho Devi .. Appellant v. Rajinder Kumar and others ..Respondents. (4) F.A.O. No. 205 of 1998 (O&M) Atma Ram .. Appellant v. Rajinder Kumar and others ..Respondents. (5) F.A.O. No. 236 of 1998 (O&M) Rajinder Kumar and another .. Appellants v. Resho Devi and another ..Respondents. FAO No. 150 of 1998 [2] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. N.L. Sammi, Advocate for the appellants in FAO Nos. 150, 159 and 236 of 1998 and for the driver and owner in FAO Nos. 203 and 205 of 1998. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants in FAO Nos. 203 and 205 of 1998 and for the claimants in FAO Nos. 150, 159 and 236 of 1998. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the Insurance Company. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned five appeals arising out of the same accident. FAO Nos. 203 and 205 of 1998 have been filed by the claimants seeking further enhancement of compensation, whereas FAO Nos. 150, 159 and 236 of 1998 have been filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle challenging the finding of the Tribunal absolving the Insurance Company of the liability, considering the fact that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid driving licence on the date of accident. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 28.7.1994, Resho Devi along with Sunita Devi were waiting for a bus at Bus Stand, Sherpur Sulakhani. In the meantime, a truck bearing registration No. HYX-4287, being driven by Sonu in a rash and negligent manner, came there and dashed against the wooden khokha of Atma Ram-claimant, as a result of which the wooden khokha was damaged and Atma Ram also received injuries. Thereafter, the truck struck into the bus queue shelter of Haryana Roadways causing damage to the shelter. Sunita Devi, who was sitting beneath the shelter received injuries and died at the spot. Resho Devi- claimant received multiple injuries. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, `the Tribunal') awarded Rs. 24,600/- and Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to claimants-Resho Devi and Atma Ram respectively. The Tribunal absolved the insurance company of its liability. The impugned award is under challenge in the aforesaid appeals. FAO No. 203 of 1998 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant in the present case had suffered fractures in her arm and head injury as well, besides FAO No. 150 of 1998 [3] spending huge amount on her treatment. Nothing has been awarded by the Tribunal on account of attendant and special diet. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the claimant in the present case has been awarded much more than what she deserved to be granted and the same does not call for any further enhancement. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant seeking further enhancement of compensation. The claim that the appellant in the present case had suffered head injury is not borne out from any evidence produced on record regarding the kind of injury suffered. It is only that she had suffered fracture in her arm, which was plastered. On account of that, the Tribunal was already quite generous in awarding compensation in the following terms: (i) Compensation for reimbursement of medical expenses Rs. 4,000.00 (ii) Compensation for pain & suffering: Rs. 15,000.00 (iii) Compensation for loss of income: Rs. 3,600.00 (iv) Compensation for transportation charges: Rs. 2,000.00 ----------------- Total: Rs. 24,600.00 The manner, in which the amount of compensation has been determined, it is evident that Resho Devi-claimant has been granted Rs. 15,000/- on account of pain and suffering, which will take care of the special diet, which the appellant had to take during the period she remained under treatment. Otherwise on account of medical treatment and loss of income for the period she remained bed ridden, sufficient amount has already been awarded. Another fact, which needs to be noticed is that FAO No. 204 of 1998 filed by Chhote Lal and Gurmejo, where the Tribunal awarded Rs. 70,000/- on account of the death of Sunita, was dismissed by this Court on 18.3.1998. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. FAO No. 205 of 1998 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant in the present case had suffered injury on his eye, besides his tea khokha had been totally damaged in the accident. For khokha alone, he had suffered a loss of about Rs. 10,000/-. Besides that, he had to spend thousands of rupees on the treatment of his eye, which was ultimately damaged. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as far as injury to the eye is concerned, it was a false claim projected by the appellant for which there was no corroborating evidence on record. Regarding FAO No. 150 of 1998 [4] damage to the khokha, on the basis of the material produced on record in the form of oral evidence, sufficient amount has already been awarded. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find that any case is made out for enhancement of compensation to the appellant. As far as damage to the wooden khokha is concerned, it was only the oral statement of the claimant, which as such could not be relied upon. However, considering the fact that the appellant had raised some unauthorised wooden stall, the Tribunal assessed the amount of compensation on estimation, which cannot be faulted with in the absence of any clinching evidence on record. As far as claim on account of damage to left eye is concerned, it was only the oral statement of the claimant that he received injury on his left eye. No medico-legal report was produced in support of the claim. Evidence of some private doctor was sought to be produced, which was not found to be trust worthy. Though the appellant had registered a criminal case against the driver of the vehicle, but even in that the appellant did not state before the police that he had received injury in his left eye or the same was completely damaged in the accident. In the investigation got conducted by the Insurance Company, it was found that Atma Ram had lost sight of his left eye after he got operated the same. Considering the aforesaid evidence, the learned Tribunal did not find substance in the claim of the appellant that he suffered any damage to his eye on account of the accident and finding to that effect cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. FAO Nos. 150, 159 and 236 of 1998 The owner and driver of the vehicle have filed appeals challenging the finding of the Tribunal, whereby the liability of compensation has been put on them on account of the fact that driver of the vehicle, namely, Devinder Kumar alias Sonu was not found to be carrying a valid driving licence on the date of accident. The finding is sought to be challenged by placing on record documents (Annexures-P1 and P2) along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence in the form of a certificate issued by S.M. Janta Senior Secondary School, Barrara (Ambala) stating the date of birth of Devinder Kumar to be 4.3.1974 and also the certificate issued by Additional District Registrar (Births and Deaths)-cum- District Health Officer, Ambala dated 23.12.1997 showing the date of birth of Devinder Kumar to be 4.3.1974. Taking support from the aforesaid two documents, which though were not produced before the Tribunal, the finding recorded by the Tribunal was sought to be challenged wherein it was opined that on the date of accident, the FAO No. 150 of 1998 [5] driver of the vehicle was not even entitled to hold a licence being minor, as his date of birth was found to be 15.10.1978. It was submitted that considering the evidence now being led by the appellants, fresh opportunity is required to be given to them for proving these documents in evidence and in case the driving licence held by the driver of the vehicle is proved to be valid, the entire burden of compensation would fall on the Insurance Company. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the evidence, which is sought to be produced now, cannot at all be relied upon as the same was created after the decision of the claim petitions by the Tribunal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the owner and driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal has found as a fact that driver of the vehicle, namely, Devinder Kumar @ Sonu was born on 15.10.1978. In support thereof, documents (Exs. R14, R15, R16 and R17) were produced from the school where Devinder Kumar @ Sonu was studying, which are in the form of school leaving certificate, application form for admission and copy of school register etc. In all these documents, the date of birth of Devinder Kumar @ Sonu was mentioned as 15.10.1978. The date of issuance of driving licence in the present case was found as 4.1.1994 and the date of accident is 28.7.1994. What to talk of relying upon the driving licence produced on record by the driver of the vehicle, namely, Devinder Kumar @ Sonu, which was issued prior to the date of accident, even on the date of accident, he was not eligible to hold a driving licence being less than 16 years. As regards two new documents, sought to be produced on record by the appellants along with the application for additional evidence is concerned, a perusal of document (Annexure P2) shows that entry in the register of births was got made on 22.12.1997 by showing the date of birth of Devinder Kumar as 4.3.1974, for which a certificate was got issued. It was after the decision of the claim petitions by the Tribunal on 28.8.1997. On that basis, a fresh certificate was got issued from the school showing his date of birth as 4.3.1974, which could not possibly be relied upon considering the evidence already on record from the school, where Devinder Kumar was studying, which is not in the form of one or two documents, rather, at four different places and one of them being the application form for admission (Ex. R15), where father of Devinder Kumar, namely, Rajinder Kumar had himself mentioned his date of birth as 15.10.1978. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in holding that the driving licence held by the FAO No. 150 of 1998 [6] driver of the vehicle on the date of accident was not valid and accordingly the Insurance Company could not be made liable to indemnify the insured. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 22.1.2010 mk