F.A.O.No.5342 of 2006(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.5342 of 2006 (O&M) Decided on : August 11, 2009 Oriental Insurance Company Limited ... Appellant VERSUS Gurmail Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Naveen Kapoor, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr.J.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondents. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This appeal by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (herein referred as `the appellant') is against the award dated 28.9.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimant – respondent No.1 Gurmail Singh, injured (herein referred as the claimant), aged about 40 years was accepted and he was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- against the Insurer (appellant), owner and driver (driver and owner of the offending vehicle, respectively) jointly and severally, subject to Indemnity Clauses of the Insurance Policy. Further, it was ordered that if the amount is not paid within three months, then the claimant shall be entitled to recover the same F.A.O.No.5342 of 2006(O&M) [ 2 ] alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. In brief, the facts are that on 18.5.2004, the claimant was going as pillion rider on a scooter bearing Reg.No.PB-10J-4373, being driven by Jagjit Singh. When they reached in the area of village Bhatt, then a Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.PB-10AK-8710 came from the opposite side and struck against the scooter. Resultantly, both Jagjit Singh and the claimant fell down and suffered multiple grievous injuries. The claimant remained admitted in Pondori Nursing Home and, thereafter, shifted to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana and, in this way, he incurred lot of expenses. He also suffered pecuniary loss as he could not run his milk dairy due to permanent disability. As such, he raised a claim of Rs.10 lacs along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the accident, till actual realisation. The claim petition was contested. Respondents No.2 and 3 in their written statement besides taking various preliminary objections, admitted that the injured was travelling on scooter No.PB-10J-4373 as pillion rider. It was also admitted that the claimant suffered injuries on account of the accident, however, it was added that he suffered injuries for the fault on his own part. The appellant also took many preliminary objections vis-a-vis the petition is bad for non-joinder of effective parties; the respondent No.2 did not have a valid driving licence at the relevant time; he was driving the said car in the course of his employment with the owner and as such the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation; the car was not having valid registration certificate, route permit and fitness certificate. On merits, the appellant Company denied, if any such accident F.A.O.No.5342 of 2006(O&M) [ 3 ] had taken place. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the claimant suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car No.PB-10AK-8710 by respondent No.1.OPP? 2. Whether respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?OPR3 3. Whether above said car was not having valid registration certificate, route permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident, if so, it's effect?OPR3 4. To what amount and from whom, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation?OPP 5. Relief.” The Tribunal allowed the petition and awarded Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant. The main thrust of the arguments of the appellant Company is that no First Information Report was lodged immediately after the occurrence. The DDR dated 18.5.2004 (Ex.RX) was not recorded on the statement of the claimant and it mentions that the accident took place per chance and respondent No.2 was not at fault. As such, the accident cannot be said to have taken place. To the contrary, the claimant has supported the judgment by referring to the evidence led by him on record. Admittedly, the accident took place on 18.5.2004, wherein, the claimant as well as Jagjit Singh suffered injuries. Dr.Ranjit Singh (PW1) F.A.O.No.5342 of 2006(O&M) [ 4 ] has supported this fact while stating that Gurmail Singh (claimant) was admitted in the Department of Orthopedic on 18.5.2004 vide CR No.11553 and admission No.2004-32827 and it was a case of close fracture shaft of femur right side with open fracture tibia mid-distal third region right side with devolving injury of right foot with exposed tenderness on the dorsum of right foot. He also disclosed about the operations conduced upon him (claimant). Besides Dr.Ranjit Singh (PW1), the claimant has supported his version as set up in the claim petition, which stands unrebutted, rather, respondent No.2 (driver of the offending car) has also admitted his negligence. No doubt, DDR brought on record recites a clause that respondent No.2 was not at fault, but this DDR was not put to him during cross-examination, therefore, this document cannot be used against him. The appellant Company did not examine any witness to rebut the claim set up by the claimant. Thus, the Tribunal was right in reaching the conclusion that the accident took place because of the negligence of respondent No.2. As regards the quantum of compensation, the claimant suffered 30% disability over his body. As per the doctor, he suffered various fractures, for which he was operated upon. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Senior Cashier (PW4) has proved the discharge bill (Ex.PW4/1), which is worth Rs.40,155/- and has been issued by the In-charge of the DMC Ludhiana. According to Doctor Ranjit Singh (PW1), the claimant remained admitted in the Hospital from 18.5.2004 to 10.6.2004, therefore, he must have taken special diet and had been attended by some attendant, for which he must have spent a lot of money upon the medicines and needs future treatment from a doctor. He had to suffer a lot of pain and mental agony. His status F.A.O.No.5342 of 2006(O&M) [ 5 ] in the society has also diminished due to disability. Therefore, considering these all facts and circumstances, the compensation cannot be said to be on higher side. Thus, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE August 11, 2009 `gian'