FAO No. 5142 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5142 of 2011 Date of decision 12.8.2011 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Appellant v. Sanjay and Others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sanjay Pabbi,Advocate for the appellant .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short the 'Insurance Company') against the Award dated 21.4.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Rohtak (for short the Tribunal). As per the case of respondent-Sanjay, 25 years of age , on 18.11.2008 at about 5.30 p.m, after loading the milk, he was going to his village Sanghi, from Rohtak, on TVS motor cycle, bearing registration No.HR-12K/1037. When he reached near Water Works, Brahmanwas near Sanghi turn, from the opposite side, a tractor bearing registration No. HR- 12C/7604 ( offending vehicle) driven by Ramesh, respondent No.1 at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, struck against the motor cycle. Sanjay fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries. In the meantime, Manoj, brother of the injured happened to pass through that side and he FAO No. 5142 of 2011 2 witnessed the accident. He caught hold of the driver and noted down the number of the offending vehicle. Sanjay was taken to PGI MS Rohtak and from there, he was shifted to Max Heart and Vascular Hospital,New Delhi. His right arm had to be amputated in the operation and he suffered 80% permanent disability. He was discharged from the hospital on 11.12.2008. Respondent No. 1 was the registered owner and driver of the offending vehicle and the same was insured with Appellant-Insurance Company. Upon notice, respondent No.1 ( owner-cum-driver) of the offending vehicle denied the allegations made in the claim petition. However, it was pleaded that respondent-Sanjay was driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and it hit against a tree, as a result of which he received the injuries. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company filed a separate written statement alleging that the claim petition was not maintainable being incomplete,vague and filed with concocted story of false accident. It has been further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Sanjay-injured himself appeared in the witness box as PW1, tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and examined his brother Manoj as PW2, besides PW3 Bijender Singh and PW4 Dr. R.P.Calonia, who proved disability certificate Ex.P23. PW1 Sanjay deposed that he was running a milk dairy and doing the work of agriculturist. His monthly income was Rs. 14,000/- p.m. He adduced in evidence medical bills, Ex. P1 to P 22 amounting to Rs. 56,280/-. Respondents have not examined any witness in rebuttal. FAO No. 5142 of 2011 3 The case of the claimant stands established from his version, fully supported by the testimony of his brother PW2 Manoj, and the medical evidence adduced on record. The Tribunal while concluding its finding relied upon the corroborating version of PW2, Manoj, which was further fortified by the fact that respondent No. 1 did not appear in the witness box to deny the occurrence of the accident as narrated by the PW1 Sanjay and his brother PW2 Manoj. The Ld. Tribunal has negated the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that PW2 Manoj has been falsely introduced as a witness to the accident. The Ld. Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle, for withholding material evidence. The driver is facing trial for the accident in question. There is nothing on the file to show that respondent No.1 has ever protested to the police regarding his false implication in the accident. The FIR Ex. P24, fully proves the accident on record. Accordingly, it was held by the Ld. Tribunal that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. While granting the claim to Sanjay i.e injured, the Ld. Tribunal has taken into consideration the medical evidence adduced on the record. The discharge certificate, Ex.P22, issued by the Max Heart and Vascular Hospital, New Delhi proves that the patient remained admitted in the hospital and was operated upon there and his right arm was amputated. From 18.11.2008 to 8.12.2008, he remained admitted in PGI MS Rohtak. PW4, Dr.R.P.Calonia has fully proved the disability certificate Ex. P23 stating 80% permanent disability suffered by Sanjay. Exh. P1 to P22 are the medical bills for the expenses incurred on the treatment of injured. The Ld. FAO No. 5142 of 2011 4 Tribunal, while awarding the total compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,38,100/- to the injured, has taken into consideration the pain and sufferings, loss of income, special diet, transportation charges, attendant charges etc. by applying the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298. It was ordered that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the injured-claimant. Aggrieved against the Award, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ld.Tribunal has wrongly awarded the amount of compensation to the claimant. The liability fastened on the Insurance Company is wholly erroneous, as the Tribunal has drawn wrong and imaginary inference without going into the record and passed the impugned Award. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the case file, this Court feels that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to the claimant-Sanjay,26 year old boy, who lost his right arm in the accident and suffered 80% permanent disability, as established from the disability certificate Ex. P23 fully proved by Dr.R.P.Calnoia. He suffered pain and mental agony as well as psychological impact of loosing a vital organ of his body. It was rightly held by the Ld.Tribunal that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the injured. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in the Award dated 21.4.2011 passed by the Ld. Tribunal. The appeal of FAO No. 5142 of 2011 5 appellant fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 12.8.2011 MS