IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No.230 of 2004 Date of decision: 11.8. 2011 Jaswant Singh. …..Appellant Versus Kuldip Raj and others. ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No 1. For the petitioner: Mr. Malya Kaushal, Advocate with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This appeal by the claimant is directed against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi, whereby he dismissed the claim petition filed by the present appellant. 2. The undisputed facts are that the claimant, a police constable was driving Gypsy bearing registration No.HPM-2. This vehicle was attached with the Superintendent of Police, Mandi. As per the averments made in the petition, on the said day, the Superintendent 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. - 2 - of Police, Mandi was coming from Palampur towards Mandi. At a place known as Mohar-Dhar, near Narla, vehicle bearing registration No.89C 55543 N(ML), being a Shaktiman truck belonging to the Indian Army came from opposite side. According to the petitioner, this truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and it hit the Gypsy, as a result of which, the claimant suffered injuries. He lost four teeth in the accident. 3. The respondents did not deny the factum of accident, but according to them the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself. The petitioner appeared as his own witness and also examined PW.1 Sh. Biri Singh. 4. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal discarded the testimony of PW-1 only on the ground that in the claim petition it is not mentioned that Biri Singh was travelling in the vehicle. It is mentioned in the claim petition that the Superintendent of Police, Mandi was travelling in the vehicle. It was not necessary to give details of all the occupants. Sh. Biri Singh while appearing in the witness box stated that he was the Gunman attached with the Superintendent of Police, - 3 - Mandi and therefore, he would be naturally present in the vehicle. The learned Tribunal in my view gravely erred in holding that Biri Singh was not travelling in the vehicle. In fact, Biri Singh had himself filed a claim petition, being Claim Petition No.66 of 1997 and that claim petition was decided in his favour by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi on 15.10.2001. According to the claimant, who has annexed copy of this award filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 Code of Civil procedure that no appeal has been filed against the said judgment. Biri Singh was awarded Rs.13,200/- as compensation. In fact, not only, was the trial court wrong in discarding the statement of Biri Singh, it also gravely erred in disbelieving the testimony of the driver of the Gypsy, who clearly stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver i.e. Kuldip Raj. The driver of the truck did not step into the witness box, therefore, adverse inference was required to be drawn against the truck driver. 3. From the entire material on record, it is apparent that the accident had occurred - 4 - due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Army truck and the finding of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Gypsy is totally wrong. 3. Coming to the issue of quantum, PW-4 Dr. K.K. Vaidya stated that he examined the claimant on 8.7.1997 and according to him three teeth of the claimant were knocked out due to the injuries sustained in the mouth. There is no disability, or any other loss except loss of three teeth. The claim of the claimant that he has lost four teeth cannot be believed, in view of the evidence produced by him. The claimant has failed to show as to how this has caused any loss of eating capacity to him. 4. In view of the fact that the accident was occurred in the year 1997 and keeping in view wages at that time, in my opinion, a sum of Rs.30,000/- in lump-sum is sufficient for pain and sufferings, discomfort and loss of three teeth. The petitioner is also entitled to interest @7.5% per annum on this amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till - 5 - payment/deposit of the amount. No order as to costs. August 11, 2011 (Deepak Gupta), (rkv) Judge