1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T Gaurav Kachhawaha vs. Rajendra Singh Rajawat & Ors. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 2419/2007 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 24.08.2007 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Jodhpur in claim case No. 99/2005. DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 04.11.2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANAK MOHTA Mr.A.K.Rajvanshi for the appellants. Mr.A.K.Dadhich for respondent No.3. BY THE COURT : The above mentioned appeal has been filed by the claimant appellant against the judgment and award dated 24.08.07 passed by the Addl.District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract) No.4, -cum- Judge, MACT , Jodhpur in claim case 2 No.99/2005 by which the learned Judge has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant appellant. Briefly stated, for the disposal of this appeal factual aspect of this case are that from the perusal of record it reveals that on 14.07.01 the present appellant was coming on his bicycle along with two others Girish Mathur and Sumit Tripathi. It is said that when they reached at Paota B Road, at that time a jeep bearing No.RJ19-IC-4848 came from the front side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the appellant. He fell down and then the wheel of the jeep passed over the back of the claimant. Due to this accident, claimant received serious spine injuries and it is said that his ½ portion of the lower part of the body lost complete sensation and he got paralised. It is stated that he also sustained head injury in the said accident. It is further stated that at the time of accident, appellant was of 21 years old and he was studying in 12th Class. Along with his studies, he used to take tuition and by this job, he used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month. It is stated that due to serious injuries caused in accident, he remained under treatment for a pretty long time and he visited different hospitals. Even during 3 treatment, as per advice of the doctor, he approached hospital at Beijing , China. He has stated that a huge amount was spent over the treatment and still he is under treatment . He has stated in the claim petition that at the time of accident, jeep was driven by respondent No.1 Rajendra Singh Rajawat and it was owned by respondent No.2 Sumer Singh. At that time the jeep was insured with respondent No.3, United India Insurance Company. As the accident was caused by the driver of the jeep, therefore, driver , owner, as well as the insurer of the jeep are stated to be responsible for the payment of compensation. Due to the gravity of the injuries , he became totally handicapped of working , he used to take permanent assistance of others to perform his daily and routine work. On that basis, doctor has certified his disability upto 100% vide Ex.8. In claim petition he has mentioned the details of compensation and on that basis, a total claim of Rs.1,08,63,000/- was claimed. It was also stated in the claim petition that a report of this incident was lodged at the concerned police station and ultimately the police, after thorough investigation, filed challan against the driver of the offending jeep, with the allegation of rash and negligent driving 4 of the said jeep and causing injuries to appellant. A prayer was made to award adequate compensation in the claim petition. Notice of claim petition was issued. The respondent No.1 and 2, the alleged driver and owner of the jeep, filed joint reply denying the allegations made in the claim petition. Further it is stated that the jeep was never indulged in said accident and a false case was lodged against them and in that case jeep was seized wrongly and in the last a prayer was made to dismiss the claim petition. The Insurance Company , respondent No. 3 also filed separate reply and denied the facts stated in the claim petition. It further stated that accident was caused by one scooter as stated by the claimant himself. Thereafter to procure compensation, the involvement of concerned jeep has been shown. Therefore, Insurance Company cannot be made liable for compensation. In the alternative, it was also submitted that it is a case of contributory negligence. Further it is stated that at the time of alleged accident, the jeep driver was not having valid driving licence. Thus, that was a violation of breach of the 5 terms of the policy. Therefore, Insurance Company cannot be made responsible for the payment of compensation and prayer was made to dismiss the claim petition. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned tribunal framed relevant issues with regard to factum of accident and with regard to quantum of compensation. From the side of claimant, AW/1 Gaurav Kachhawaha , AW/2 Bhuvneshwar Bhati, AW/3 Anand Singh Kachhawaha, AW/4 Dr. Sumnesh Mathur, and AW/5 Dr.Kishore Raichandani were produced and also got exhibited certain documents Ex.1 to Ex. 160 in support of his claim. In rebuttal, the respondents got examined NAW/1 Devi Singh, NAW/2 Rajendra Singh and NAW/3 Ravi Mehta and also got exhibited Ex. A-1 to A-10. After hearing both the side, the learned tribunal did not find involvement of the driver of the jeep in accident and while deciding issue No.1, held that accident occurred not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. Thus, issue No.1 was decided against the appellant. The learned 6 tribunal, over ruled the other contentions raised by the Insurance Company and under the quantum of compensation on the basis of material available on record, determined the amount of compensation as Rs.8,37,869/-. But considering the finding on issue No.1 ultimately rejected the claim petition vide its judgment and award dated 27.08.07. Being felt aggrieved and dissatisfied with the finding on the issues held against the claimant, the claimant appellant has filed this appeal challenging the validity , legality and propriety of the learned tribunal in passing the judgment. Looking to the facts of the case, notice for disposal of the case at the admission stage was issued to the respondents. Despite service, respondent No.1 and 2 driver and owner of the vehicle did not appear. Counsel for Insurance Company appeared. Arguments were heard. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the claimant appellant submitted that learned tribunal has not properly considered and appreciated the material available on record and erroneously passed judgment while rejecting the claim petition. It was contended that the learned Judge was 7 highly influenced by the fact that the police after investigation filed a final report in court and drew an inference that a false case was registered against the driver of the jeep. But that was totally against the record. It was submitted that the police filed the final report on account of the fact that the concerned offending vehicle was not available but later on, on the protest of the claimant appellant, the matter was re-investigated and challan was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle,but the learned tribunal has over looked the important material in this respect. Likewise learned tribunal was highly impressed by the fact that in a report made by the father of the claimant injured, number of the vehicle has not been narrated. Thereafter, the said jeep was wrongly connected. It was said that such sort of finding is also against the record. In fact , report was lodged by the father of the injured Anand Singh who was not an eye witness of occurrence. First time he visited his son in serious condition in hospital. Due to that he became disturbed. He has specifically mentioned in the report Ex.2 that his son sustained injuries in motor accident. He has further stated that his son is hospitalized but he is unconscious and he has further stated in his report that the 8 particulars of the vehicle involved in accident are within the knowledge of his friend Girish and that will be supplied later on. But the learned tribunal did not appreciate the facts in totality and took the injuries in isolation and wrongly interfered that the said vehicle was not involved in accident and concluded the issue. It was also contended that from the very beginning on behalf of the claimant it was stated that police was under the influence of respondent No.1 and 2, therefore, they did not make fair and proper investigation and recorded wrong statement and concluded accordingly. The witnesses who appeared before the learned tribunal has made clear the position. Before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, injured himself has appeared and he has specifically stated how the incident occurred. His statement is trustworthy. It was urged that only on his statement issue was found well proved. His statement is further corroborated by other evidence also . In this respect, learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention towards the statement of witnesses and on the basis of material available on record , it was stated that in 9 rebuttal, only driver of the offending vehicle has appeared but he is highly interested witness , his statement cannot be believed. It was also urged that during investigation, notice Ex.5 under section 133 of the M.V.Act was given to owner of the vehicle Sumer Singh. That has been received by him, despite that neither he has replied to notice nor he has appeared before the tribunal in evidence. Thus, the evidence produced by the claimant has remained unrebutted. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as to prove issue No.1 the sole witness in this case is injured himself . His statement was sufficient and the tribunal should have relied on his statement. There was no need to produce other witnesses. In support of his contentions, he also cited a judgment given in Chako vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2004 SC 2688) and drew my attention towards the observation made in para No.7 of the judgment, which is as under:- “Coming to the question whether on the basis of a solitary evidence conviction can be maintained. A bare reference of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'the Evidence Act') would suffice. The 10 provision clearly states that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish the case. Conviction can be based on the testimony of single witness if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable.” Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the learned tribunal has also committed a grave error in computing the quantum of compensation. In this respect learned counsel drew my attention towards the statements of witnesses specially the statement of AW/5 Dr.Kishore Raichandani and AW/4 Dr.Sumnesh Mathur respectively. He also drew my attention towards the statement of the father of the claimant and on that basis, it was stated that huge amount has been incurred and further expenditure on treatment is going on . The learned tribunal should have considered these important aspect of the case, but it has not considered in right way and has not awarded adequate compensation. The learned tribunal has wrongly discarded some evidence and documents. On the basis of these submissions, it was urged that the finding on the concerned issue be quashed and it may be held that 11 accident occurred due to the sole rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep and adequate compensation may be determined and awarded and appeal may be allowed. On the contrary, learned counsel for the the Insurance Company refuted the contentions and submitted that the claimant appellant has not been able to establish before the tribunal that the concerned jeep was involved in accident. It was contended that from the record it is reveled that father of the claimant has lodged the report after getting information from the person who is stated to be an eye witness of the incident. Even he has not mentioned the particulars of the vehicle. Later on they have, with some ulterior motive to procure compensation, has indulged the concerned jeep. The tribunal has rightly concluded issued No.1 and there is no scope for interference and it was urged that the judgment may be maintained and the appeal may be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the finding on each issue and the conclusion drawn thereon. I have perused the authority cited by the learned counsel for the 12 appellant and the material available on record. The main question arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the finding on issue No.1 given by the learned tribunal is not in accordance with the record of the case and does it require interference ?. Keeping in mind the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, first of all it is proper to scan the evidence, in brief, produced by the parties. From the side of claimant AW/1 Gaurav Kachhawaha, injured himself has appeared. He has stated that on 14.07.01 he himself along with his friends Sumit and Girish were going on bicycles. At that time, a jeep bearing No.RJ 19-IC-4848 came in his wrong side. That jeep was in a high speed and it hit his bicycle and he fell down. He has further stated that the tyre of the jeep passed over his body. He has stated that his friend Girish has seen the occurrence. He informed about the accident to his family members. He has also stated that he remained unconscious for 3 days he was admitted in MDM Hospital, Jodhpur and gained conscious thereafter. He has 13 further stated that at that time police came to the hospital but his statement was not taken by the police. In his statement he has denied the statement Ex.A/1 suggested in cross examination. He has also narrated in details about the treatment and exhibited the concerned documents. AW/2 Bhuvnesh Bhati is said to be the attendant attached to the injured for his assistance. He has stated that he was attending the injured and he used to get Rs.7,000/- per month . He has also proved the relevant papers of payment,. AW/3 Anand Singh Kachhawaha is the father of the appellant. He has stated that he got the information of accident from Girish but at that time his son was not conscious. He has further stated that he made a report to the police, Ex.2, he has further stated that his son was unconscious at the time of lodging report. He has stated that Girish met him after 10 days and has told the full particulars of accident, but he has denied the police statement Ex.A/4, suggested in cross examination. He has also narrated the facts with regard to treatment given by the doctors to his son. AW/4 Dr.Sumnesh Mathur is the Physiotherapist. He has stated that he used to attend the injured as per requirement. He has also stated that the injured claimant will require 14 physiotreatment through out his life and for that he has to incur Rs.2,000/- per month. AW/5 Dr.Kishore Raichandani is the doctor who has issued disability certificate Ex.8. He has stated in detail the injuries sustained by the claimant and has further stated that there was no improvement in the condition even after passing of five years. From the side of respondent, NAW/1 Devi Singh has been produced he was the investigating officer on the report. He has stated that due to the non-traceability of the concerned vehicle, final report Ex.A/8 was given in the Court. NAW/2 Rajendra Singh has been produced and he has denied in his statement the involvement of the concerned vehicle but he has admitted that police had filed challan against him in court. NAW/3 Ravi Mehta has been produced on behalf of the Insurance Company. He has simply stated that information of the accident was not given. The learned tribunal while deciding issue No.1, has only considered the statement of AW/1 Gaurav Kachhawaha. Admittedly, this witness has stated that along with him, his friend Sumit and Girish were there and Girish saw the incident. The learned tribunal found that from 15 the side of claimant, no eye witness was produced for corroboration. Therefore, the statement of AW/1 Gaurav was not found reliable and has given much emphasis on the statement of driver of the offending vehicle. NAW/2 Rajendra Singh who has denied the involvement of the concerned vehicle. The learned tribunal further drew inference from the factum that the police, after investigation, has filed final report Ex. A/8 before the tribunal. Thus, on the basis of the reasons assigned while discussing issue No.1 did not find proved issued No.1 in favour of the claimant. But to my mind, the learned tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence and material placed on record by the claimant's side. It is admitted fact that the claimant AW/1 Gaurav Kachhawaha has sustained severe injuries and he became unconscious. The report was made by his father on mere information of the accident. Specifically it has been mentioned by his father in the report that the number of the vehicle will be suppled, after getting specific information from Girish . Before the learned tribunal the claimant himself has stated the number of the vehicle and has given the details as 16 to how the accident occurred and on that material, there was no cross by the opposite side. In that position, his statement cannot be discarded. Further, his contention is corroborated by the fact that soon after the incident, report was lodged to the police and the police ultimately, after thorough investigation, has challaned against the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, merely on the non-production of Girish or any other eye witness, the version stated by AW/1 Gaurav Kachhawaya cannot be discarded. To find out the truth, tribunal was free to call the alleged eye witnesses at its accord. During the course of argument, a contention was also raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that proper opportunity to produce evidence was not afforded by the tribunal and in this respect an application under order 41 rule 27 CPC has been moved to produce Girish in evidence. I have considered the contentions . In this case the learned tribunal has not properly enquired into the matter and without considering the material available on record, concluded issue No.1 against the defendant. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, the finding on issue No.1 is not 17 sustainable and is liable to be quashed. I have also considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to quantum of compensation. Though the learned tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 8,37,869/- but in this respect also evidence has not been appreciated properly. A huge amount has been spent under treatment and documents have been produced and exhibited but the learned tribunal has discarded some documents on baseless grounds. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the finding on issue No.1 as well as on issue No.3, are not found sustainable, they deserved to be quashed. As the case is required to be afresh reconsidered and re-appreciated of material available on record and for that it is found just and proper to remit back the case to the concerned tribunal. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award is quashed and the matter is remanded back for afresh hearing. If any of the 18 party move for additional evidence, the learned tribunal will sympathetically consider the application and will afford chance for producing evidence, without delaying the matter, will conclude the hearing expeditely. For appearance of the parties, next date before the learned tribunal is fixed as 17.11.08 .Notice will be issued to driver and owner of the jeep alone. No order as to costs. (MANAK MOHTA), J. l.george