Mangla Ram vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd

2. The appellant alleges that on or about 10th  February, 1990, while he was riding his motorcycle, bearing No. RJ­ 19­6636,   he   was   hit   by   jeep   No.   RST­4701,   owned   by respondent   No.3   and   purportedly   being   driven   by respondent No.2 at the time, resulting in serious   injuries and ultimately, amputation of his right leg above the knee. The appellant subsequently filed an application before the Tribunal,   Jodhpur,   seeking   compensation   against   the respondents,   including   the   respondent   No.1   insurance company. He claimed 40% permanent disability and 100% functional disability, contending that his primary livelihood of   driving   heavy   transport   vehicles   (HTVs)   had   been curtailed   on   account   of   his   amputation,   and   sought compensation  to the  tune of Rs. 11,17,000/­. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 denied the accident and the involvement of the jeep in question. The respondent No.1 insurance company argued that the cover note purportedly taken for the jeep in question   was   fraudulent.   The   cover   note   had   been   given unauthorisedly   by   its   then   Development   Officer,   no 3 premium   had   been   deposited   with   the   company   and   no policy had been issued in that regard. Thus, the jeep was not validly insured.

3. In   its   judgment   dated   22nd  November,   2000,   the Tribunal   discussed   the   evidence   on   record   in   detail.   PW2 (Chainaram)   and   PW4   (Thanaram),   who   had   taken   the appellant   to   the   hospital   after   the   accident,   deposed   that after   the   accident,   the   jeep   which   caused   the   accident stopped   ahead   and   they   noted   the   jeep   number   in   the backlight and  further, they  heard the driver’s name being called   out   by   the   passengers   in   the   jeep.   The   Tribunal, however, found that their version of having noted the jeep number   and   heard   the   driver’s   name   seemed   to   be unnatural.   The   Tribunal  also discarded the version  of the appellant (PW1) about the details of the vehicle as being not reliable. The Tribunal then noted the evidence of the defence witnesses, that the jeep in question was nowhere near the area   of   the   accident.     The  Tribunal,  however,  opined  that the accident had been caused by the jeep in question, based on   the   investigation   report   filed   by   the   police   mentioning that   when   they   seized   the   jeep   after   one   month   of   the 4 accident, the jeep bore a scratch on the mudguard of the tyre on the upper footboard on the left side. The Tribunal also relied on the charge sheet (Exh.1) filed by the police, wherein it has been stated that the accident was caused by the jeep in question on the basis of statements made by the appellant   and   other   witnesses   (Roopram,   Thanaram   and Pratap Singh). The Tribunal held that there was no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the police. In short, the Tribunal   disbelieved   the   evidence   of   the   appellant’s witnesses, regarding the commission of accident by the jeep in question, as unreliable but nevertheless relied upon the investigation   report   as   also   the   charge   sheet   filed   by   the police   in   that   regard   which   was   supported   by   two   other witnesses who did not depose before the Tribunal.

4. The   Tribunal   then   referred   to   the   site   map   of   the accident (Exh.2), to conclude that the appellant was riding his motorcycle one foot on wrong side from the middle of the road and hence, had contributed to the accident by being negligent.   The   Tribunal   also   accepted   the   plea   of   the respondent No.1 insurance company that the cover note  as regard   the   offending   jeep   was   fraudulent.   The   Tribunal 5 accepted the evidence of witness DW4, the branch manager of   the   respondent   No.1   insurance   company,   that   the company  did  not   receive any  premium under  the relevant cover note and had not issued any insurance policy in that regard.   DW   4   had   deposed   that   the   cover   note   was   not deposited   with   the   company.   Further,   the   concerned development officer, whose signature was on the cover note, had   been   removed   from   the   respondent   No.1   insurance company   but   had   in   his   possession   certain   cover   notes, including   the   relevant   cover   note.   DW   4   stated   that   no insurance policy was issued on the basis of the said cover note. The Tribunal then found that it was possible that the Development Officer had backdated the cover note and had not   deposited   the   money   for   issuing   a   policy   with   the company. The Tribunal thus held that the vehicle was not insured by the company and, therefore, the company was not liable.

5. Based on the aforesaid observations, the Tribunal took into   account   the   injuries   caused   to   the   appellant   and calculated compensation of Rs. 1,27,000/­ but, owing to the 6 purported negligence of the appellant, reduced the amount by half and finally awarded a sum of Rs. 63,500/­ to the appellant payable by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly.

6. The   appellant   filed   an   appeal   (SB   Civil   Misc.   Appeal No.273 of 2001) for enhancement whereas respondent Nos. 2   and   3   (driver   and   owner   of   the   jeep,   respectively) challenged the Tribunal’s award (by way of SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.290 of 2001), before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur  Bench.  In its judgment dated 5th  January, 2017, the High Court concluded that the Tribunal’s findings were incorrect,   unconvincing   and   not   supported   by   evidence. Further, the Tribunal’s reasoning, that it did not believe the oral evidence of the parties but had nevertheless answered the issue in favour of the claimant solely on the basis of the police report, on the ground that there was no reason not to believe the conclusion arrived at by the police, was flawed and incorrect. The High Court noted that the Tribunal was not convinced about the involvement of the vehicle, despite which it held that involvement was proved. Furthermore, no finding   regarding   negligence   of   the   driver   of   the   jeep   had been   recorded   by   the   Tribunal   rather   it   found   that   the 7 appellant   was   negligent   while   riding   his   motorcycle.   The High Court took the view that mere filing of a charge­sheet, without any finding of conviction, was insufficient to prove negligence   by   respondent   Nos.   2   and   3.   Additionally,   the High   Court   also   held  that   the  statement  of  the  appellant, wherein he claimed that the bumper of the jeep had hit the rear of his motorcycle, was contradicted by the investigation report of the jeep which recorded that it did not bear out that   the   jeep   had   been  involved  in an  accident.  The High Court,   therefore,   was   pleased   to   set   aside   the   Tribunal’s award and allowed the appeal filed by the driver and owner of   the   jeep   (respondent   Nos.   2   and   3   respectively)   while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.

14.    Indeed,   the   Tribunal   did   not   accept   the   version   of PW­1,   PW­2   and   PW­4   about   the   involvement   of   Jeep No.RST­4701,  but has not discarded their version in toto. The   evidence   of   these   witnesses   to   the   extent   they   have consistently   stated that  when  the appellant was riding on his motorcycle bearing No.RJ 19­6636 at the relevant time, going to Basni from Panwara Phanta and when he reached near Siviya Nada, a green jeep coming at a high speed from Salawas side, hit the motorcycle from back side, as a result of which the appellant fell down and suffered severe injuries including to his right leg which was eventually amputated from   above   the   knee   level,   has   not   been   doubted. Pertinently,   besides   mentioning   the   description   of   the offending vehicle as a “jeep” they have also spoken about its colour (green) and that it was displaying the Congress Party flags and banners on the side of the jeep. In other words, their version limited to having noted the jeep number, has not   been   accepted.   Besides,   the   Tribunal   relied   upon   the evidence   of   respondent   No.2   Chail   Singh   (DW­1)   and Bhanwar   Singh   (DW­2) who  had  stated  that  the  jeep  was deployed in the election campaign of Sarpanch of Somdar 16 Village   on   the   Salawas   Road   and   thus   denied   the involvement   of   the   vehicle   in   the   accident   in   question. Nevertheless, the Tribunal then adverted to the FIR and the charge­sheet   filed   in   respect   of   the   accident   naming respondent No.2 as accused. The Tribunal placed reliance upon the copy of challan (Exh.1), copy of FIR (Exh.32), Site Map   (Exhs.3   &   4),   Jeep   Seizure   Report   (Exh.5),   X­Ray (Exh.6)  and Injury Report (Exh.7), to opine that these police records gathered during the investigation of the crime not only   confirmed   that   an   accident   had   occurred   but   also indicated   the   involvement   of   the   offending   Jeep   No.RST­ 4701, which was driven by respondent No.2 at the relevant time. The Tribunal went on to conclude that there was no reason   to   disagree   with   the   opinion   of   the   Investigating Agency in  that behalf. The charge­sheet was accompanied by   the   statements   of   the   appellant   and   the   witnesses Rooparam, Thanaram and Pratap Singh. On the basis of the entirety   of   the   evidence,   the   Tribunal   had   held   that   Jeep No.RST­4701 which was driven by respondent No.2 at the relevant   time   was   involved   in   the   accident   in   question, causing severe injuries to the appellant.

The   Tribunal   and   the   High   Court   have,   therefore,   gone into error in divesting the claimants of the compensation payable to them.”

24. In other words, we are inclined to hold that there is no tittle   of   evidence   about   the   motorcycle   being   driven negligently   by   the   appellant   at  the   time   of   accident.     The respondents did not produce any such evidence.  That fact, therefore, cannot be assumed.  Resultantly, the argument of the respondents that the appellant did not possess a valid motorcycle driving licence at the time of accident, will be of no   significance.     Thus,   we   hold   that   there   is   no   legal evidence   to   answer   the   issue   of   contributory   negligence against the appellant.

27. Reverting to the calculation of compensation amount, taking   the   loss   of   monthly   income   due   to   permanent disability   of   40%,     the   appellant   will   be   entitled   to Rs.2,25,792/­  [Rs.840 per month (i.e. 40 % of Rs.2,100/­) + 40% future prospects [as per Pranay Sethi (supra)] x 12 x 16,   i.e.   (840   +   336)   x   12   x   16.     We   uphold   the   amounts quantified   by   the   Tribunal   towards   the   heads   for   medical treatment after the accident, motorcycle repair, mental and physical   problem,   as   it   is.   However,   the   appellant,   in   our opinion,   is   additionally   entitled   to   medical   expenses   for procurement   of   a   prosthetic   leg,   which   is   quantified   at Rs.25,000/­   (Rupees   twenty   five   thousand   only).   In summation, the appellant would be entitled to the following compensation:

28. The appellant would also be entitled to interest on the total amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 11 th June, 1990   till   the   date   of   realization.   The   respondents   will   be entitled   for   adjustment   of   amount   already   paid   to   the appellant, if any.

29.  The appeals are allowed in the above terms with costs.

……………………………...CJI.

April  06, 2018.